NationStates Jolt Archive

That rocks! I wish I'd done that!

I have links to a Klingon bible project somewhere - I wonder if they've translated marriage vows, yet?

I think the marriage vows were the first done (since people wanted to be married in Klingon). Did you mean you wish you'd been married in Klingon or that you wish you'd gotten the image of people married dressed as Klingons?

"...and the geek shall inherit the earth..."

(at least, I hope so.)

I think the marriage vows were the first done (since people wanted to be married in Klingon). Did you mean you wish you'd been married in Klingon or that you wish you'd gotten the image of people married dressed as Klingons?

"...and the geek shall inherit the earth..."

(at least, I hope so.)

What kind of sad, basement-dwelling geek do you take me for?

OF COURSE, I meant I wish I'd got married as a Klingon, in a Klingon ceremony!

(Unless someone out there has got a Cardassian version of the marriage Vows?)

;)

What kind of sad, basement-dwelling geek do you take me for?

OF COURSE, I meant I wish I'd got married as a Klingon, in a Klingon ceremony!

(Unless someone out there has got a Cardassian version of the marriage Vows?)

;)


no but close

vulcan

no but close

vulcan

Okay, now THAT'S cool.

Okay, now THAT'S cool.


I know

*slicks back greasy black hair against pale white neck*

lol

*looks around the forum*

Hmm... there are a lot of geeks in here, aren't there?

(Counting myself, that is. Please don't flame.)

I think your telling porkysPorkys? It has been a while since I read feminist theory. And some of the authors had definite chips on their shoulder regarding men. Really a turn-off. And maybe, maybe a couple of authors hated men. But that wasn't typical of the authors I read, and it sure as heck isn't typical of the feminists I have run across in person, or the mainstream feminism I have been exposed to (such as BUST (www.bust.com)). As for saying men have no role in the new family of equal partnership between spouses, except as a wallet, that's just plain bizarre.
dear.Awww, I can feel the love. But I'm afraid it just wouldn't work out between us.

Guess so, if they don't mind their marriage not being recognised by any religion which doesn't allow homosexual marriage or a government which doesn't grant it the same benefits as it would a heterosexual marriage. Knock yourself out.

See, we don't mind our marriage not being recognized by religions. We do, however, mind discrimination from our government(s).

Christians like myself have this wacky idea that people would prefer being in heaven than hell when the world falls apart and everyone dies (2 years, 87 days, 7 hours if you're interested...... kidding). This would demand that society in general knows how to get to heaven. This society would try to follow God's laws. I'd say the majority of Christians believe that homosexual relations go against the model that God has for us. Thus the interference.

And when you have a Christian (apparently) leading your country then it kind of gets difficult to change things. Although I see he's not done much against most of the other commandment breakers that plague the US and he even likes to kill innocent people in other countries to improve the state of his bank balance.

What good is following commandments if they are forced on you by others? Isn't the point that people are supposed to want to and willingly do it? If they don't want to abide by rules they do not believe in and they harm no one else (which no one has been able to suggest that being gay harms anyone) then what place does anyone, even a Christian who thinks he is doing it for their own good, to force it off on you? Sounds awful big-brotherish to me. Watch out, the Baptists are watching you.

but then George Bush and any position of power should stay sepArate, and that's not gonna happen for at least 4 years. You don't always get what you want. And you don't always get Christmas presents from your auntie.

Based on the Consitution and the Lemon Test, we have a right to expect that our government will not make its decisions based on anyone's religion.

If church and state should remain seperate, then the government should not recognize marriage at all. Let religions regulate marrige how they want, on the legal side have nothing but civil unions for everyone (which regulate property during the breakup of relationships, taxes, and legal rights implied by such relationships). Clearly, the way the government regulates marriage now is entanglement of state and religion, and therefore unconstitutional.

Of course, the conservatives would oppose this idea as well. They claim they support the sanctity of marriage, but they would not want the government to get out of it (allowing them to keep marriage as "sacred" as they damn well please). In reality, the issue is that they support the sanctity of the government. They want the government to continue to deal with marriage because they want the government to enforce their standards of morality.

*applause*

What good is following commandments if they are forced on you by others? Isn't the point that people are supposed to want to and willingly do it? If they don't want to abide by rules they do not believe in and they harm no one else (which no one has been able to suggest that being gay harms anyone) then what place does anyone, even a Christian who thinks he is doing it for their own good, to force it off on you? Sounds awful big-brotherish to me. Watch out, the Baptists are watching you.


Thats what free will is all about

Thats what free will is all about

Then why do so many Christians seem to think it important that they force us to live by their interpretation of said commandments?

[QUOTE=Dettibok]Porkys? It has been a while since I read feminist theory. And some of the authors had definite chips on their shoulder regarding men.

Some? lol

Try alllllllllllllllllllllll of them.


As for saying men have no role in the new family of equal partnership between spouses, except as a wallet, that's just plain bizarre.

Not really, what other role have they got, fatherhood has been destroyed, in

the west anyway.

Awww, I can feel the love. But I'm afraid it just wouldn't work out between us.

Aw cmon, I'll give you a nice neck rub. ;)

Welcome to the club!

of PC, everyone welcome except Christians.

I've given my opinion about gay marriage in another thread but I will repeat : it's all fine by me, but why offend so many Christians? Legal rights should be enough, and I'm willing to support gays on getting those.

Moving on to the poll results now. [cynic mode on]


Yes, gay marriages should be allowed. 1415 74.71%
No, gay marriages shouldn't be allowed 479 25.29%


Illustrating how internet forums are dominated by the left wing.

Illustrating how Bush could have won against all expectations.

[QUOTE]
Not really, what other role have they got, fatherhood has been destroyed, in

the west anyway.


What do you define as fatherhood? If anything, fathers are now more involved in their families (when they are involved at all--I will admit that there are a lot of deadbeat dads, but that's is their own damned fault). Father have ceased to be the sole provider and discplinarian (just wait till your father gets home!) and have instead become partners with their wives. They are now expected to be loving and nuturing, and women are more expected to discipline without relying on their husbands.

Personally, I think that fathers have a much bigger roll than they used to. Again, there are a lot of deadbeat jackasses that just seem to want to impregnante women and run off. These are not fathers, they are losers.

I've given my opinion about gay marriage in another thread but I will repeat : it's all fine by me, but why offend so many Christians? Legal rights should be enough, and I'm willing to support gays on getting those.


You DO realize that legal rights are all gays are asking for? We realize that we can't force religious organizations to recognize our marriages, even if we would like them to. All we want the government to do is grant us equality. Whether or not churches recognize us is a battle to be fought in the churches--by those gays who want a church wedding. If the government would recognize our unions and give us equal rights, then by and large you will see the huge fights go away.

What kind of sad, basement-dwelling geek do you take me for?Hey! I resemble that remark!

And some of the authors had definite chips on their shoulder regarding men.
Some? lol

Try alllllllllllllllllllllll of them.I stand by my statement.

Not really, what other role have they got, fatherhood has been destroyed, in the west anyway.Wha? TV commercials are not reality. Companies are starting to offer paternity leaves... Fatherhood is making a comeback. There are "deadbeat jackasses" that Pracus mentioned, but generally their role (by choice) is to be sperm donar rather than wallet or father. I don't see how this is the fault of feminism.

Aw cmon, I'll give you a nice neck rub. ;)I could use a shoulder rub. But I'd rather hang with people where I'm safe to be myself. I can get along with just about anyone by putting on a mask of noncomittal banality, but I find it tiring.

I've given my opinion about gay marriage in another thread but I will repeat : it's all fine by me, but why offend so many Christians? Legal rights should be enough, and I'm willing to support gays on getting those.Me too. Thing is, not calling gay marriages marriages would be an insult to gays. Making the change in terminology across the board won't help matters, as there is still the implication that gay marriages are not "real" marriages, and would also offend so many Christians. I'm willing to support gay marriage, and more than that, I do support gay marriage.

And the thing is, is marriage really a religious term? Yes religions are involved in recognizing many marriages, but if a Christian says someone is married, I'll know what they mean. If a Christian talks about grace, I won't know what they mean. And I suspect this is true of most people who don't know much about any religions.

As well, Gays aren't saying anything bad about Christianity when they get married. Some Christians may be offended, but that doesn't mean Gays are being offensive.

What do you define as fatherhood?

Giving kids love and discipline when they need it, and not being afraid to use

the discipline either.


[QUOTE] If anything, fathers are now more involved in their families

As how, the silly father, who lets them do whatever they want?

(when they are involved at all--I will admit that there are a lot of deadbeat dads, but that's is their own damned fault).

There always have been, but most fathers are great.

Dont forget, there are alot of deadbeat mums out there too.

Father have ceased to be the sole provider and discplinarian (just wait till your father gets home!)

Its amazing the effect those words had on kids what wouldnt stop playing up.

Must have been something in it.

and have instead become partners with their wives. They are now expected to be loving and nuturing, and women are more expected to discipline without relying on their husbands.

I dont really believe women are that well equipped in this area, their too soft

emotionally and physically hence they left this vital part of bringing up kids

properly, usually to their husbands.

(waits to be regaled with tales of scary Aunt Bertha and her huge hard hands of discipline and fury)


Personally, I think that fathers have a much bigger roll than they used to.

I disagree.

Its an unimportant one that isnt even taken seriously.


Again, there are a lot of deadbeat jackasses that just seem to want to impregnante women and run off. These are not fathers, they are losers.

Agreed, there are also alot of welfare mums who dont care who has sex with

them, they are also losers.

[QUOTE=Dettibok]

Wha? TV commercials are not reality.
Well sadly they reflect society.

So if the adds arent realistic, then...

Companies are starting to offer paternity leaves... Fatherhood is making a comeback.

As what but?

A guy that changes nappys and formulas?

Very inspiring stuff.


I could use a shoulder rub. But I'd rather hang with people where I'm safe to be myself.

I have no problem with people being themselves provided they dont enforce

their views if differing from my own in an aggressive, overtly, or covertly way.


I can get along with just about anyone by putting on a mask of noncomittal banality, but I find it tiring.

Putting on a mask is just that, you can only wear it for so long.

Frankly, this whole "Oh, why can't gays just have civil unions and leave the word "marriage" for us special, privileged, God-favoured straights," ...is completely false, in light of the referendums which passed in many states, supposedly defending marriage, but in effect, denying gay couples the rights to protections of contract law previously available to all citizens (who could afford them.)


The laws you voted for show that this line is completely disingenuous: this is about bigotry and a religious agenda, nothing more.

Based on the Consitution and the Lemon Test, we have a right to expect that our government will not make its decisions based on anyone's religion.
Aye, but your government does consist of a bunch of numpties. Lemon test? Is that like the Squishy Squishy test?

What good is following commandments if they are forced on you by others? Isn't the point that people are supposed to want to and willingly do it? If they don't want to abide by rules they do not believe in and they harm no one else (which no one has been able to suggest that being gay harms anyone) then what place does anyone, even a Christian who thinks he is doing it for their own good, to force it off on you? Sounds awful big-brotherish to me. Watch out, the Baptists are watching you.
If they're forced on you, free will doesn't exist. My beliefs aren't forced on me. I've come to accept them over a number of years, mainly because not accepting them saw my life go down the proverbial lavatory. That just made mine an easy choice.

Anything you do which goes against God is hurting you, by taking you further away from God. Whether homosexuality is against God is something people decide for themselves but one of the various viewpoints is correct. We just don't know which one.

And yes.. look over your shoulder...

:eek: :eek: THE BAPTISTS ARE WATCHING YOU :eek: :eek:

up till midday then the methodists take over.

As what but?

A guy that changes nappys and formulas?

Very inspiring stuff.
Um.. er... I'd say a father getting involved in things like that is a GOOD thing. Guess I was wrong. Guess it signifies the breakdown of the fibres of the moral fabric.

Um.. er... I'd say a father getting involved in things like that is a GOOD thing. Guess I was wrong. Guess it signifies the breakdown of the fibres of the moral fabric.
yeah, i guess men being actual parents (rather than sperm donors) is another one of those awful feminist ideas that is ruining the country. lord knows there isn't a single man on the planet who actually LIKES caring for his own children, or who has the stomach to endure the millions of messes that child-rearing will bring.

There should be nothing on the lawbooks called marriage. Rather there should only be civil unions between any two people 18 or older. People could still get married in the churches, but it would have no legal standing.

As how, the silly father, who lets them do whatever they want?


As the loving and nuturing father who involves himself in ALL aspects of their upbringing



There always have been, but most fathers are great.

Dont forget, there are alot of deadbeat mums out there too.


Finally, something we agree one. I didn't say that since fathers were the focus of this conversation.



Its amazing the effect those words had on kids what wouldnt stop playing up.

Must have been something in it.


Yeah, there was fear in it. But I'm sorry, I don't just want to be the harbinger of fear to my kids--I want them to love and respect me. Sure I'll discipline if needed, but that isn't the end all, be all of my existance with them. A father shouldn't be expected to play the bad cop role all the time.


I dont really believe women are that well equipped in this area, their too soft

emotionally and physically hence they left this vital part of bringing up kids

properly, usually to their husbands.


This statement continues to prove how sexist and uninformed you are. My mother could discipline every bit as much as my father and often did so. There are plenty of single mothers who don't need a man's help to discipline their children--and there are plenty of single fathers doing just fine without the woman.


Agreed, there are also alot of welfare mums who dont care who has sex with

them, they are also losers.

Again, I agree. That's twice in one post, must be a record for us.

Aye, but your government does consist of a bunch of numpties. Lemon test? Is that like the Squishy Squishy test?


If they're forced on you, free will doesn't exist. My beliefs aren't forced on me. I've come to accept them over a number of years, mainly because not accepting them saw my life go down the proverbial lavatory. That just made mine an easy choice.

Anything you do which goes against God is hurting you, by taking you further away from God. Whether homosexuality is against God is something people decide for themselves but one of the various viewpoints is correct. We just don't know which one.

And yes.. look over your shoulder...

:eek: :eek: THE BAPTISTS ARE WATCHING YOU :eek: :eek:

up till midday then the methodists take over.

I have always seen the 'conversion under duress' as a rather strange route to be an 'accepted' route to religious conversion.

Maybe it's just me, but if people turn to religion because their lives are so bad (like the astounding rate of prison conversions), what is it that actually differentiates religion from alcoholism, or drug addiction? They are all just escapes from horrible reality, surely?

Well, that's just my opinion, maybe.

Back to your post-comment about homosexuality hurting people, because it takes them away from the will of god... I think that my posts in the thread:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367071&page=216&pp=15

More than covers why that ISN'T so... but, also - once again, we run into the problem that not everyone believes in YOUR god... so why should they be bound by your constraints?

Um.. er... I'd say a father getting involved in things like that is a GOOD thing. Guess I was wrong. Guess it signifies the breakdown of the fibres of the moral fabric.

I dont think it is, sometimes maybe, but not on a daily 'I did it last time, now

its your turn' basis, no wonder men are questioning what they are these

days, their not much less now, than a female with male genitalia.

[QUOTE=Pracus]As the loving and nuturing father who involves himself in ALL aspects of their upbringing

This is where I really disagree with most people I meet now, I dont think its

too healthy for the male ego to be that involved in child rearing, your there

to protect them, let your wife nurture them, thats her role.

The kids will be much better off.


Finally, something we agree one. I didn't say that since fathers were the focus of this conversation.

Im glad to see that you, unlike some others on here, have a more mature

approach, and wont let your different beliefs get in the way.


Yeah, there was fear in it.

Fear is a good teacher.


But I'm sorry, I don't just want to be the harbinger of fear to my kids--I want them to love and respect me.

Im not saying traumatise them, just dont be afraid to give them a kick up the

arse when they need it.



Sure I'll discipline if needed, but that isn't the end all, be all of my existance with them. A father shouldn't be expected to play the bad cop role all the time.

Of course not, but you providing the discipline will take the pressure off your

wifes shoulders, the kids will do what she says easily and not drive her nuts.


This statement continues to prove how sexist and uninformed you are. My mother could discipline every bit as much as my father and often did so. There are plenty of single mothers who don't need a man's help to discipline their children--and there are plenty of single fathers doing just fine without the woman.


Ah the first iron fisted Aunt Bertha tale :p

Im not denying that women are able to discipline, I just believe men are much

more effective at it, and a role their much more suited for.

Again, I agree. That's twice in one post, must be a record for us.

It is, and also Im not a sexist. A sexist, male or female, hates or dispises the

other sex, in general I dont hate or dispise women.

There are of course some women I absolutely loathe, just as there are

some men I absolutely loathe, if it is acceptable for a man to loathe

certain men, then it should be also acceptable for a man to loathe certain

women without being called a sexist.

yeah, i guess men being actual parents (rather than sperm donors) is another one of those awful feminist ideas that is ruining the country. lord knows there isn't a single man on the planet who actually LIKES caring for his own children, or who has the stomach to endure the millions of messes that child-rearing will bring.

What about physically disciplining them, why do feminists have such a huge

problem with men doing this?

Is it because the kids will listen to the father more, instead of the mother?

[QUOTE]

This is where I really disagree with most people I meet now, I dont think its

too healthy for the male ego to be that involved in child rearing, your there

to protect them, let your wife nurture them, thats her role.

The kids will be much better off.


I don't know what world you live in, but I pray you never have kids.


Fear is a good teacher.


Fear is the WORST teacher. It might get quick results, but it rarely gives long term ones or understanding.



Of course not, but you providing the discipline will take the pressure off your

wifes shoulders, the kids will do what she says easily and not drive her nuts.


A. I won't have a wife.
B. Women are just as capable as men. We are EQUALS now, they are not subservient.


Im not denying that women are able to discipline, I just believe men are much

more effective at it, and a role their much more suited for.


Actually its just the easier role and men are lazy.


It is, and also Im not a sexist. A sexist, male or female, hates or dispises the

other sex, in general I dont hate or dispise women.


Incorrect as usual. Sexists do not have to hate or despise members of the other gender. They just have to believe that the other gender is inferior in one way or another and is not capable of everything your gender is. Ergo, you ARE a sexist.

[QUOTE]
There are of course some women I absolutely loathe, just as there are

some men I absolutely loathe, if it is acceptable for a man to loathe

certain men, then it should be also acceptable for a man to loathe certain

women without being called a sexist.

I agree. I hate certain women and am not a sexist. I however believe that women are capable of everything a man is and vice versa. You on the other hand do not and are a sexist.

This will be my last post to respond to you. Your complete lack of logic, consideration of other arguements, and understanding of the english language have disturbed me beyond what I thought possible.

Thanks for replying Pracus, and managing to keep your cool.
I couldn't, so I just didn't respond.

[QUOTE=Pracus]I don't know what world you live in, but I pray you never have kids.

Well at least I will, you on the other hand, probably never will as you seem

a bit confused.


Fear is the WORST teacher. It might get quick results, but it rarely gives long term ones or understanding.

Wrong, the quick results bring quick understanding as well, I guarentee most

kids would prefer a quick slap on the bum to another tedious lecture, they

know they have done something wrong, and dont need the above, they do

have brains, and dont need you to bore the hell out of them.

But why am I telling you this?







A. I won't have a wife.

Agreed, unless you have a drastic change in your life.


B. Women are just as capable as men. We are EQUALS now, they are not subservient.

I dont believe in equality, or that one sex is greater than the other.

We have different roles in life, not adherring to them is ruining western

societys.



Actually its just the easier role and men are lazy.

Men are lazy?

Gee whos building the worlds citys, I must have lost count of the

swarms of women on building sites.

Give credit where its due, if it wasnt for mens labour, there would be no

citys, or trains, cars, ships planes, factorys etc etc.



Incorrect as usual. Sexists do not have to hate or despise members of the other gender. They just have to believe that the other gender is inferior in one way or another and is not capable of everything your gender is. Ergo, you ARE a sexist.

Thats only a PC version, which seems to be manipulated and altered almost

every year.

I believe men and women are superior and inferior to each other in differring

aspects, and I dont believe this all washes out in the end as equality, we are

simply too different to each other, to ever be really equal.


Ergo, I am only a sexist if I consider myself to be one, which I dont.

Your view of what a sexist is and isnt, will probably be different in

five years to your present one, as is dictated to you by western society.

I agree. I hate certain women and am not a sexist. I however believe that women are capable of everything a man is and vice versa. You on the other hand do not and are a sexist.

Then you are sadly wrong, women are not generally capable of everything a

man can do\is and vica versa.

Role reversals are just that, and shouldnt be accepted for anything except

for the lie that it really is.

I am not a sexist either, I am a realist.



This will be my last post to respond to you. Your complete lack of logic, consideration of other arguements, and understanding of the english language have disturbed me beyond what I thought possible.

lol whatever

Que sera sera

Thanks for replying Pracus, and managing to keep your cool.
I couldn't, so I just didn't respond.

now now dont bite your monitor :) ;)

There should be nothing on the lawbooks called marriage. Rather there should only be civil unions between any two people 18 or older. People could still get married in the churches, but it would have no legal standing.
I agree with you whole-heartedly. People claim that since gay people can get Civil Unions, they don't need to be given marriage. That's crap. In a Civil Union you don't get nearly as many rights concerning your partner as you do with a marriage.
And, if people are going to keep trying to throw out gay marriage by saying that marriage is a holy union, then it should be a holy union, with no legal perks, except perhaps an automatic civil union, which should be the joining that recieves legal perks.

NOTE: I did not say I was against marriage. For some reason when I make this argument people misread what I say and get mad at me for being a polygamist or something. What I said was that marriage as it is now should be renamed as Civil Unions and be open to everybody; religions can keep the word "marriage" if they want it.

NOTE: I did not say I was against marriage. For some reason when I make this argument people misread what I say and get mad at me for being a polygamist or something. What I said was that marriage as it is now should be renamed as Civil Unions and be open to everybody; religions can keep the word "marriage" if they want it.
Sorry but I disagree, religious people can use the word marraige to describe their religious unions, and they can choose to take part in the social institution of marraige along with everyone else, or not. I certainly dont intend to change the language to suit the wrongly premised unsound notions of a group of busy-bodies.

Sorry but I disagree, religious people can use the word marraige to describe their religious unions, and they can choose to take part in the social institution of marraige along with everyone else, or not. I certainly dont intend to change the language to suit the wrongly premised unsound notions of a group of busy-bodies.
What are these wrongly premised unsound notions you speak of? What I have said so far was:

Civil Unions do not grant the same rights as marriages (which is true)
People fight against gay marriage using religion as a defense (which is true)
Marriage is a religious institution (which is true)

Then I put those three together and came up with the idea that religion can take the word marriage, since religion claims it, and the government can replace the word marriage with Civil Union. It's a simple fix, what's the problem with it?

Then you are sadly wrong, women are not generally capable of everything a

man can do\is and vica versa.

You're absolutely right. Women are not at all capable of having a penis (excepting hermaphrodites).

And, um...yeah, that's all I think of. Anyone got something to add?

You're absolutely right. Women are not at all capable of having a penis (excepting hermaphrodites).

And, um...yeah, that's all I think of. Anyone got something to add?
Well, I've been told that men are generally incapable of having babies... but that's about all I can think of.

What are these wrongly premised unsound notions you speak of? What I have said so far was:

Civil Unions do not grant the same rights as marriages (which is true)
People fight against gay marriage using religion as a defense (which is true)
Marriage is a religious institution (which is true)

Then I put those three together and came up with the idea that religion can take the word marriage, since religion claims it, and the government can replace the word marriage with Civil Union. It's a simple fix, what's the problem with it?

I think what peopleandstuff was trying to say is that s/he isn't going to give in to religious people thinking that marriage is solely a religious institution. S/he wasn't disagreeing with what you said, just that s/he didn't agree that we shoudl compromise in the title.

I think what peopleandstuff was trying to say is that s/he isn't going to give in to religious people thinking that marriage is solely a religious institution. S/he wasn't disagreeing with what you said, just that s/he didn't agree that we shoudl compromise in the title.
Ah... I thought that might be the case. Unfortunately, I don't think the religious fanatics will ever allow gay marriage , and will always claim that the reason is because their religion is against it. However, if we take away the word marriage (which is really only a cosmetic change anyways) then they will have no argument to support their bigotry.

Well, I've been told that men are generally incapable of having babies... but that's about all I can think of.

You've obviously never seen the movie Nine Months, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (as the mama) and The Death of My Last Shred of Faith in the Hollywood Film Industry (as itself).

Ah... I thought that might be the case. Unfortunately, I don't think the religious fanatics will ever allow gay marriage , and will always claim that the reason is because their religion is against it. However, if we take away the word marriage (which is really only a cosmetic change anyways) then they will have no argument to support their bigotry.

I agree with you actually. I wish it didn't have to be that way (and you know in their personal life everyone is still going to use that term), but I'm afraid it does. Sometimes a compromise must be struck. If they will give me equal rights, I will give them the name.

You've obviously never seen the movie Nine Months, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (as the mama) and The Death of My Last Shred of Faith in the Hollywood Film Industry (as itself).

Actually, Nine Months was Hugh Grant and Juliane Moore. The Arnold move was Junior and co-starred Emma Thompson.

Ah... I thought that might be the case. Unfortunately, I don't think the religious fanatics will ever allow gay marriage , and will always claim that the reason is because their religion is against it. However, if we take away the word marriage (which is really only a cosmetic change anyways) then they will have no argument to support their bigotry.

Bah. It's a civil rights issue. They shouldn't get to decide, which is why the whole voting on gay marriage amendments is such a silly idea.

If any compromise is to be made, the best one I've heard yet is that ALL marriages be called civil unions in the eyes of the state, and then people can go about having a religious version (or "marriage") in their individual churches.

Actually, Nine Months was Hugh Grant and Juliane Moore. The Arnold move was Junior and co-starred Emma Thompson.

Whoops. You're right.

In the original Greek/Hebrew I said the right title, though. I swear.

Bah. It's a civil rights issue. They shouldn't get to decide, which is why the whole voting on gay marriage amendments is such a silly idea.

If any compromise is to be made, the best one I've heard yet is that ALL marriages be called civil unions in the eyes of the state, and then people can go about having a religious version (or "marriage") in their individual churches.
Both arguments that I have made in the past. As for the first one, apparently since gay people aren't acknowledged as being prejudiced against they don't get the protection of the Civil Rights Amendments.

Love is Love, there is no harm in it at all!

Well sadly they reflect society.

So if the adds arent realistic, then...The advertisers lied to you, yes. I thought everyone knew that advertisements lied. Guess what: sitcoms aren't realistic either.

The advertisers lied to you, yes. I thought everyone knew that advertisements lied. Guess what: sitcoms aren't realistic either.

Obviously Donna Reed and The Patty Duke Show are though by the viewpoint of certain people.

Will and GRace though. . .totally not true. I have no where near the fashion sense of Will or Jack.

Obviously Donna Reed and The Patty Duke Show are though by the viewpoint of certain people.

Will and GRace though. . .totally not true. I have no where near the fashion sense of Will or Jack.
I have a friend who is gay. He is definitely not Will, or Jack, or the Fab Five. He's actually your textbook stereotypical nerd. Go figure.

I have a friend who is gay. He is definitely not Will, or Jack, or the Fab Five. He's actually your textbook stereotypical nerd. Go figure.
WoW! thats like the last group of people i would ever expect to be gay. Does he act in gay in anyway (Aside from liking men) whatso ever? is it easy to tell hes gay?

WoW! thats like the last group of people i would ever expect to be gay. Does he act in gay in anyway (Aside from liking men) whatso ever? is it easy to tell hes gay?
I didn't know until I overheard him asking another of our friends if she thought that yet another of our friends was interested in him. Then, two years later, he brought his boyfriend to a party at his house. Those are the only two instances of him revealing his homosexuality, although he doesn't hide it.

WoW! thats like the last group of people i would ever expect to be gay. Does he act in gay in anyway (Aside from liking men) whatso ever? is it easy to tell hes gay?

For people to be gay they don't have to act a certain way. Each gay would have his/her own personality, the gays you see on TV are hardly realistic.

You're absolutely right. Women are not at all capable of having a penis (excepting hermaphrodites).

And, um...yeah, that's all I think of. Anyone got something to add?

To be honest, men are naturally stronger then women. But that doesn't mean all men are stronger then them, women are perfectly capable of being stronger than men as long as they try.

i don't under the big thing against gay marriage. they would make better parents than half them out there. and if you come back to me with because God is against it. than i have one comment. if jesus knock on a church door today and said hi i'm back they would close the door on his face. no one not even the church believes in OUR LORD anymore!

i don't under the big thing against gay marriage. they would make better parents than half them out there. and if you come back to me with because God is against it. than i have one comment. if jesus knock on a church door today and said hi i'm back they would close the door on his face. no one not even the church believes in OUR LORD anymore!

You sound pretty sure of yourself there.

I see absolutly no problem with gay marriage. The government has no right to regulate what goes on in the bedroom. No one is being harmed or killed, and if it's between two consenting adults, then what's the point of having to deal with the expeditures and legal hassels of enforcing a discriminitory law that proves nothing?

I wouldn't want to live a homosexual lifestyle, but at the same time, what gives "moralists" the right to legislate other's morality and force their personal beliefs on another?

I'm in a unique position, that Im both gay and extremely right wing...
In my opinion, Although I would vote for Gay Marriage, I really think it is a much bigger issue that people are making it.

My question is ... why do you want it so much (if your gay) and 2ndly why does it need to be called 'marriage'?

Marriage by definition is something for churches etc ... the very people who are 'generally' against gays in the first place. Whats wrong with civil unions ?

Also ... Who gives a shit honestly ... Let hetero's have marriage .. is it such a big deal ... too many people bitch about too many unimportant things these days, instead of focusing on issues that are actually important.

While I agree that there should be no discrimination between hetero couples and homo couples, seriously ... its really not that big a deal.

Also ... to all you Hetero couples/Christian extremists ..
Why the hell do you care ?
Its not gonna cause the fall of the 'family unit' its not gonna cause all the Hetero men out there to go and get married to each other ...
All it does is even out human rights. Get over it people get over it, if it goes through in 6 months no one will care anymore ... so just let it happen ... concentrate on something more important ... liek Falling levels of Education ... or the Health System or something .. things that matter.
You think Gays are going to hell ... so what ... better to be in Hell than in Heaven with you bastards anyways, but thats another matter.

So in conclusion, if it comes down to it and I was forced to vote .. I'll vote yes, but thats only because people should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else. Gay marriage does not affect anyone other than the couple involved and its only positive for them so why the hell not.

All you busy bodies out there need to find yourselves a dam hobby ... or go cure world hunger or something useful.

I wouldn't want to live a homosexual lifestyle, but at the same time, what gives "moralists" the right to legislate other's morality and force their personal beliefs on another?

It's interesting those who whine they're getting something they don't agree with crammed down their throat cram their beliefs down other's throats.

Should the government even use the term marriage given its sacramental connotation/religeous ceremony?

Perhaps government should utilize a system based on unions. Which can not be biased. Then, if your church conducts religeous rights of marriage, you go through that process as well.

It's interesting those who whine they're getting something they don't agree with crammed down their throat cram their beliefs down other's throats.

If we're entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then why should you limit the rights of a sizable segment of the population based on your personal morals? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm currious to see what you think. When someone is not consenting to go along with whatever or if the life of anyone is at risk, that is one thing, but if two consenting adults do a private act, what gives the government the right to make it illegal?

If we're entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then why should you limit the rights of a sizable segment of the population based on your personal morals? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm currious to see what you think. When someone is not consenting to go along with whatever or if the life of anyone is at risk, that is one thing, but if two consenting adults do a private act, what gives the government the right to make it illegal?
Now first let me say that I am responding to you statement and in no way to I condem or judge anyone who classifies themselves as gay.

The what two adults do behind closed doors thing, where do you draw the line? If they want to incject each other or themselves with drugs is that ok? They harm no one but themselves etc etc.

What most goverments do is look to protect the people from themselves in some instances. So the question is, is what two or more gay men get up to behind closed doors together, harming themselves or any one else. If not then I agree, the state has no reason to step in. If they are harming themselves then the state may have a responsibility to protect its' citizens from themselves. So the only debate should be is homosexuality self harming?

I think not, but that is not to say I am correct.

There is also the question, does the activity harm society? again this is still being debated, but in the scheme of things even if it did, there are far worse threats to society that any percieved threat from homosexuality. Intolorence for a start. P.S sorry for terrible spelling!

If we're entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then why should you limit the rights of a sizable segment of the population based on your personal morals? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm currious to see what you think. When someone is not consenting to go along with whatever or if the life of anyone is at risk, that is one thing, but if two consenting adults do a private act, what gives the government the right to make it illegal?
Because a heterosexual's POV on sexual morality would see homosexual behavior and orientation as repulsive if not incomprehensible, thus regarded as a choice and a social taboo to the deepest level of certain religions. ;) You are or do bad things against the majority's personal "morals" and people tend to cut you out as a group coz you will go to HELLLLL!!!. Having a social stigma and being numerically insignificant brings that up as well to the political level, et voila...!

Should the government even use the term marriage given its sacramental connotation/religeous ceremony?

Perhaps government should utilize a system based on unions. Which can not be biased. Then, if your church conducts religeous rights of marriage, you go through that process as well.

What connotation?

The connotation taken from the Sanskrit word 'marya' - meaning a 'man, young man, or suitor'?

Which has no connection to the christian church, except that the word has been appropriated?

What you are, in effect saying is, that if a section of society 'claims' a word, they then get the 'right' to define what it means, and who is allowed to use it?

Okay - then homosexual men should be allowed to 'marry', because they are MUCH closer to the true definition, based on etymology, since BOTH would be "men, young men, or suitors".

Because a heterosexual's POV on sexual morality would see homosexual behavior and orientation as repulsive if not incomprehensible, thus regarded as a choice and a social taboo to the deepest level of certain religions. ;) You are or do bad things against the majority's personal "morals" and people tend to cut you out as a group coz you will go to HELLLLL!!!. Having a social stigma and being numerically insignificant brings that up as well to the political level, et voila...!

Not true.

I am a heterosexual.

But I can 'understand' (comprehend) WHAT about my own gender the opposite gender likes, and so, by extension - what a 'gay' member of my own gender might be attracted to. I don't really perceive that as having ANYTHING to do with morality... provided the homosexual or heterosexual acts are carried out by conscious, consenting, legal, (alive) humans.

So - it isn't incomprehensible to all heterosexuals, just, I guess, to some.

Also, since sex is, biologically, just the stimulation of certain body parts with other body parts (at it's most basic level), I don't see why a heterosexual would automatically find homosexual love 'repulsive'?

Maybe I wouldn't choose to have sex with my own gender... it just doesn't 'work' for me as a concept, but does that make it 'repulsive'? No more than, say, a guy who likes girl's legs will think that a guy who likes girl's breasts has 'repulsive' or 'incomprehensible' orientation.

It's a simple question - are gays human? If not, then why are they allowed to vote or own property? If they are, then they should be allowed all the rights of any American citizen, including the pursuit of happiness. A government that decides you can't marry the person you love is simply tyrannical.

we live in a country where every one is supposed to be equal. So why shouldnt 2 people who love each other be allowed to marry? I myself am straight and think that the prospect of this is quite disgusting, but i aslo understand that people are different, and that is no reason to limit their rights.

They (Homosexuals) shouldnt be allowed to marry because a marraige is a man and a women comming togather in marriage. Not female and female or man and man. But I do beleive that they should be given Civil Unions.

They (Homosexuals) shouldnt be allowed to marry because a marraige is a man and a women comming togather in marriage. Not female and female or man and man. But I do beleive that they should be given Civil Unions.

Okay, that's your opinion...

Now, WHY do you think that marriage is 'supposed' to be one man and one woman?

They (Homosexuals) shouldnt be allowed to marry because a marraige is a man and a women comming togather in marriage. Not female and female or man and man. But I do beleive that they should be given Civil Unions.

And you DO realize that the way Civil Unions are defined now, they grant no where near the rights and responsibilities of legal marriage--especially including none of the federal ones which are often the most important.

Further, having two separate names for the same thing is in violation of separate but equal and we've already been through that in this country and why its not acceptable. If the governmen wants to call it civil unions to compromise, fine, but its has to be EVERYONE, gay or straight, who gets them. Leave marriage to religious organizations. Of course, gays are STILL going to be married since SOME religious organizations do perform them.

What are these wrongly premised unsound notions you speak of? What I have said so far was:

Civil Unions do not grant the same rights as marriages (which is true)
People fight against gay marriage using religion as a defense (which is true)
----------Marriage is a religious institution (which is true)---------------

Then I put those three together and came up with the idea that religion can take the word marriage, since religion claims it, and the government can replace the word marriage with Civil Union. It's a simple fix, what's the problem with it?
I think number 3 would be the strongest contender...what exactly to you mean by 'religious instrument'?

[SIZE=6]Every one should just leave gay people alone because if they want to be gay then let them. It aint nobody else buisness if they get married or if they dont. they the ones who have to live with it every day we dont. :fluffle:

[SIZE=6]Every one should just leave gay people alone because if they want to be gay then let them. It aint nobody else buisness if they get married or if they dont. they the ones who have to live with it every day we dont. :fluffle:

Marriage is not a little parlour game that every Tom-Dick-N-Harry get to play.

[QUOTE=Dettibok]The advertisers lied to you, yes. I thought everyone knew that advertisements lied.

They dont really, if they did they would be in breech of the ethics act, but

live on in your own fantasy.

Guess what: sitcoms aren't realistic either.

Thanks Sherlock, well researched, also do you mean by this that their

obviously drama, or do you mean that the relationships and how the people

interact with each other arent typical, too much PC.

You're absolutely right. Women are not at all capable of having a penis (excepting hermaphrodites).

And, um...yeah, that's all I think of. Anyone got something to add?

Yes, theres alot more to men and women than just their genitalia, try and

look past the sexual apparatus Freud.

Love is Love, there is no harm in it at all!

So you dont mind then if your neighbor marrys his dog if he loves it?

So you dont mind then if your neighbor marrys his dog if he loves it?

Wow, way to not prove a point. Slippery slop thing won't work here mate.

Wow, way to not prove a point. Slippery slop thing won't work here mate.

No point in arguing with him. We've already debunked the whole people marrying children, pets and household appliances arguements. He keeps bringing it back up. Doesn't seem to understand informed conscent.

No point in arguing with him. We've already debunked the whole people marrying children, pets and household appliances arguements. He keeps bringing it back up. Doesn't seem to understand informed conscent.
At least we know he isn't a health sciences student! :p

Wow, way to not prove a point. Slippery slop thing won't work here mate.

woof woof

woof woof
Ooh didn't know you were working off your own experiences.

No point in arguing with him. We've already debunked the whole people marrying children, pets and household appliances arguements. He keeps bringing it back up. Doesn't seem to understand informed conscent.

When was people marrying kids or their pets bought up before, just make it

up then, right Pracus? :rolleyes:

Alright, first post. Just became a member. I saw this thread, and decided to reply.

To all you nay-sayers who want to "protect the sancitiy of marriage."

Here's your sanctity, summed up by an E! Entertainment webpage.

Thank you Jerry Springer.

linkage (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,3032,00.html)

Have fun with this one. :)

Ooh didn't know you were working off your own experiences.

lol your disqusting.

anyway I was just talking to you in your own language.

Well, I'm glad to see that the majority of people here feel that it should be legal. Unfortunately the state I'm from didn't vote that way this election...

I think that gay marriage should be allowed because it's wrong to deny some people the rights that others have. Most humans are allowed, legally, to marry the person they're in love with (unless it happens to be a sibling or other close relative, but that law makes sense because of the genetic problems it could give their children). I urge everyone to think of it in terms of how they would feel is someone denied them the right to marry, be covered by the health coverage of, visit in a hospital even when only family is allowed, et cetera, the person who they love.

I realize some people think that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage and all that, but that shouldn't come into legal consideration. There are probably people racist enough to think that when blacks get married it destroys the sanctity of marriage, and I think that most of you will agree that it would be wrong to say blacks can't get married because of that. (Then again, apparently most of you agree that gays should be able to marry, too. But anyhow the point is worth making.)

And it shouldn't be compared to children being allowed to marry or any of the other things people insist on bringing up. It is a completely seperate issue. Yes, maybe it will eventually bring up some of those issues. But for goodness sakes, let's wait to see if it does and let them be dealt with seperately. It's not as if legalizing gay marriage will automatically make any of that legal, so don't worry about it.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=marriage+with+a+horse&page=2&offset=0&result

so much for the 'there is no slippery slope' arguement.

Consent Pracus, let me guess, the horse was asked to give two neighs for a

yes, and a shake of the mane for a no, right?

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=marriage+with+a+horse&page=2&offset=0&result

so much for the 'there is no slippery slope' arguement.

Consent Pracus, let me guess, the horse was asked to give two neighs for a

yes, and a shake of the mane for a no, right?


I posted that. I just jumped in. I don't like it when people say gay marriage threatens the "sanctity of marriage".

And no, the horse didn't get to consent. But it was a marriage by definition. Where is the sanctity?

[QUOTE=Castir]I posted that. I just jumped in. I don't like it when people say gay marriage threatens the "sanctity of marriage".

Its called free speech, deal with it.


And no, the horse didn't get to consent.

not even a nay? :p sick joke I know.

But it was a marriage by definition. Where is the sanctity?

By whos definition but, do sick perverts like this who marry people and

animals together, really have the right to define something perverse like this

as marriage?

I'll be back later pal, I have to eat.

Has anyone noticed how, throughout the many, many gay rights threads present in thsi forum, it is always the admittedly gay contributors who are the most civil, the least defensive, the most willing to respect other opinions?
Oh yeah, and I'm for equal rights. For all people. And I beleive Jesus loves everyone. That's right. Even liberals and homosexuals.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=marriage+with+a+horse&page=2&offset=0&result

so much for the 'there is no slippery slope' arguement.

Consent Pracus, let me guess, the horse was asked to give two neighs for a

yes, and a shake of the mane for a no, right?

Well, I cannot really respond since the website isn't loading for me. However, I'm assuming that someone married a horse. However, that doesn't mean they have legal rights (like gay marriages)--nor should they since the horse CANNOT give informed consent (unlike gay marriages). The difference you ask? Two conscenting human adults capable of giving informed consent and deserving of equal treatment under the law versus one human adult and one non-sapient creature that wouldn't know what informed consent was if it was mixed into its feedbag.

When was people marrying kids or their pets bought up before, just make it

up then, right Pracus? :rolleyes:

Perhaps it was another forum (though I really don't think so) and if it was, my apologies.

Consider yourself now rebuffed:

Gay marriage is NOTHING like marriages to aninmals, children, vegetables, minerals or other non-living objects. You see informed consent required two adult, sapient creatures. None of those fit the requirements and are therefore not akin to marriage and not involved in a slippery slope (except to the feeble minded on both sides).

Drat, I just realized that I've stooped to arguing with you again <sighs>.

[QUOTE]

Its called free speech, deal with it.



No one was questioning your right to say it--just stating they didn't like it when it was done because it is unsupported and untrue. Its called free speech--deal with it.




not even a nay? :p sick joke I know.


Not even a nay. Why not? Because non-human animals are not sapient and are not able to give consent.


By whos definition but, do sick perverts like this who marry people and

animals together, really have the right to define something perverse like this

as marriage?



People are going to define marriage in their personal life however they want to define it. You can't change that--its called freedom of speech, deal with it. You can define marriage (in your personal life) however you like.

The government is not free to do so because it doesn't just deal with your personal life. It's also dealing in mine and it cannot deny me rights that others have for no reason other than "you don't like it."

The government has a business defining marriage and it should define it in a way that is inclusive of all consenting, sapient adults whose union does not pose a threat to their offspring or the country. This would include homosexual couples. We pose no threat to anyone--except for the egotistical who think that what others do in their private lives affects them.

[QUOTE]

Its called free speech, deal with it.




not even a nay? :p sick joke I know.



By whos definition but, do sick perverts like this who marry people and

animals together, really have the right to define something perverse like this

as marriage?

I'll be back later pal, I have to eat.


Hey, I'm not trying to stifle your free speech. All I'm saying is I don't like when people say that gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage. There are too many other things going on in this world to worry about if a man who loves another man can get married. Work on the divorce rate, then talk to me about sanctity.

However, getting back to the point of my first post, the definition, be it that of the "couple" in question, yours, or the governments, it's a marriage based on what that individual considers a marriage. If the man is content telling people that he's married to a horse named Pixie, how is this any better than a man confessing his love to another man and being married in front of his loved ones, and God, by law?

I have no problem with religious people. My best friend is a devout Christian. I don't even have a problem with religious fanaticism. It's your life, do with it what you will.

And that would sum up my argument. Live and let live.

I said gay marrriages should be legal because I don't understand what marriage has to do with the government anyway...why is people's sexuality their business?

lol your disqusting.

anyway I was just talking to you in your own language.
So let me get this straight (ha the only time I'll try) you think I'm a dog, you woofed at me after asking if it's cool to let people marry dogs. Are you coming on to me *flashes doggy eye lashes*

But to be serious, your a dick. Of course people shouldn't marry dogs, they're animals. A gay man, is a man honey.

Oh yeah, and I'm for equal rights. For all people. And I beleive Jesus loves everyone. That's right. Even liberals and homosexuals.

What about lawyers? :p

Let me summarize my arguement:

[Insert long, wordy explaination about civil rights and hypocrisy here.] In short, gay marriage should be allowed.

[Insert exit statements and editted in additions here.]

There. Finished.

What about lawyers? :p
Nope. Lawyers are going straight to hell.

Let me summarize my arguement:

[Insert long, wordy explaination about civil rights and hypocrisy here.] In short, gay marriage should be allowed.

[Insert exit statements and editted in additions here.]

There. Finished.

Let me summarize anti-same-sex marriage people's arguments:

1) same-sex marriages
2) ...
3) Destruction of humanity as we know it as people abandon all morals and ethics.

Let me summarize anti-same-sex marriage people's arguments:

1) same-sex marriages
2) ...
3) Destruction of humanity as we know it as people abandon all morals and ethics.

Seems a bizarre leap doesn't it.

So let me get this straight (ha the only time I'll try) you think I'm a dog, you woofed at me after asking if it's cool to let people marry dogs. Are you coming on to me *flashes doggy eye lashes*
But to be serious, your a dick. Of course people shouldn't marry dogs, they're animals. A gay man, is a man honey.

Well aint we a smartarse.

lol Ive had better and longer relationships than this.

pushes you away with a ten foot pole. :rolleyes:

your sad as.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Perhaps it was another forum (though I really don't think so) and if it was, my apologies.

Apology accepted.


Gay marriage is NOTHING like marriages to aninmals, children, vegetables, minerals or other non-living objects.

Doesnt make it right but.

Marriage is for men and women only.


You see informed consent required two adult, sapient creatures. None of those fit the requirements and are therefore not akin to marriage and not involved in a slippery slope (except to the feeble minded on both sides).

Informed consent can be anything but, even people agreeing to be killed and

eaten, as was demonstrated lately in Germany, having informed consent is a

weak reason for saying anything should be allowed.



Drat, I just realized that I've stooped to arguing with you again <sighs>.

lol welcome back buddy. :)

welcome back.

[QUOTE]


Doesnt make it right but.

Marriage is for men and women only.


You've yet to establish a logical, researched, and informed reason why this should be.



Informed consent can be anything but, even people agreeing to be killed and

eaten, as was demonstrated lately in Germany, having informed consent is a

weak reason for saying anything should be allowed.


I obvioulsy haven't read about this one in the news yet. However, I would posit that A. Cannabalism endangers people and B. The people consenting were being coerced or have some form of mental problem and therefore were NOT yielding informed consent. Therefore it WASN'T a reason to do anything.

They dont really, if they did they would be in breech of the ethics act, but live on in your own fantasy.I haven't watched UK ads. But hey, look at Thane Direct (http://www.thanedirect.co.uk/) in all its infomercial glory. They've got "Pest Magic", which is actually an ultrasonic pest repellant. (There are fairly strict limits to the electrical noise a device can generate in wiring). Or the miscellaneous ab machines. What they don't tell you is that the machines won't remove the subcutaneous fat that will hide abs on most people, even if they are thin. And five minutes of exercise a day will do very little. Advertisements lie.

Thanks Sherlock, well researched, also do you mean by this that their obviously drama, or do you mean that the relationships and how the people interact with each other arent typical, too much PC.Yes, that they're obviously drama. And to serve the cause of storytelling, the events, relationships and conversations are not typical of everyday life. They have to tell a story in half an hour, and one way to do that is to use conventions (stereotypes). Advertisements have to get their message across in 30 seconds, and the stereotypes are even grosser there.

When was people marrying kids or their pets bought up before, just make it up then, right Pracus? :rolleyes:Post #1167 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7322267&postcount=1167), for one. To which Pracus responded in the very next post:

You've quite obviously not read this thread because ever poitn you just made has already been addressed and debunked--with the possible exception of polygamy. The difference between gay marriage and beastiality is that gay adults can give informed consent. An animal cannot. Period. End of stord. QED. The polygamy matter I cannot quite address because, well, when I think about it logically I cannot see a problem to it as long as everyone is willing <shrugs>.So Pracus did indeed bring it up before in this very thread, even if zie doesn't remember exactly where. I'm not surprised no one remembered this (even I didn't, I just searched though my archives). This argument comes up over, and over, and over again, and it's hard to remember if it's been brought up in a particular thread. But Pracus did not just make it up; it has indeed been addressed before.

Post #1167 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7322267&postcount=1167), for one. To which Pracus responded in the very next post:

So Pracus did indeed bring it up before in this very thread, even if zie doesn't remember exactly where. I'm not surprised no one remembered this (even I didn't, I just searched though my archives). This argument comes up over, and over, and over again, and it's hard to remember if it's been brought up in a particular thread. But Pracus did not just make it up; it has indeed been addressed before.

I knew it had come up. Granted, I thought Term himself had brought it up, but at least I know it was in this forum! Thanks for doing the search.

So Pracus did indeed bring it up before in this very thread, even if zie doesn't remember exactly where. I'm not surprised no one remembered this (even I didn't, I just searched though my archives). This argument comes up over, and over, and over again, and it's hard to remember if it's been brought up in a particular thread. But Pracus did not just make it up; it has indeed been addressed before.


As it turns out, you can go to post 779 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7297209&postcount=779) and see that I responded to Terminalia on the issue of pedophilia. So there you go term.

If you don't want it to be true your just pretend its not right?

I think "Temme" made a very interesting point early on in the thread, and one I am inclined to agree with.

(S)he said that being gay was a myth - that there was no such thing. Now perhaps there is some true to that. There is no such thing as being "gay," "straight," or "bi," simply attraction to another human being, sometimes of the same gender, sometimes different. Simply because one makes it through this short life without being attracted to both or one or the other is not enough to label.

So thanks Temme, who ever you are. You gave me the chance to put my two cents in.

QUOTE=Pracus]You've yet to establish a logical, researched, and informed reason why this should be.

Well can you give me a logical researched informed reason to have gay

marriages?

Besides the discrimination rants.




I obvioulsy haven't read about this one in the news yet. However, I would posit that A. Cannabalism endangers people and B. The people consenting were being coerced or have some form of mental problem and therefore were NOT yielding informed consent. Therefore it WASN'T a reason to do anything.

Its been going on for a while over there, this sick individual enjoyed

cannibalism, and put adds over the net for people to be his victims, scarily

enough, he had heaps of 'positive' answers.

His 'victim' came willingly, and died willingly, while other people watched.

These people were reported to be educated and intelligent, though thats

debatable.

Well can you give me a logical researched informed reason to have gay

marriages?

Besides the discrimination rants.

Here is a logical and informed reason: We (well, most of us) live in a country that claims to treat people equally. In order for this to be true, people must be granted equal rights regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference. Aything else is hyporitical.
As for research, here's my source: The US Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

Well can you give me a logical researched informed reason to have gay

marriages?

Besides the discrimination rants.
Quite obviously, because people want it, and it affects no one else.

A Marriage between two people of the same sex is just so…
Gay!


Are hermaphrodites allowed to marry anybody in the US?

Are hermaphrodites allowed to marry anybody in the US?
They should be! :D

Here is a logical and informed reason: We (well, most of us) live in a country that claims to treat people equally. In order for this to be true, people must be granted equal rights regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference. Aything else is hyporitical.
As for research, here's my source: The US Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

So gays desperately so need to be married to prove their equal do they,

what a crock.

Quite obviously, because people want it, and it affects no one else.

But the majority of society isnt really that keen on it, are they.

So gays desperately so need to be married to prove their equal do they,

what a crock.
You misunderstand me. Gays do not need marriage to prove their equality. We need to allow gay marriage to prove we are not hypocrites.

But the majority of society isnt really that keen on it, are they.
If you had read my source of Research, you would realize that in America the majority must concede to the will of the minority.

They should be! :D

Just a side note, Gwen Steffani of No Doubt was born a hermaphrodite.

You misunderstand me. Gays do not need marriage to prove their equality. We need to allow gay marriage to prove we are not hypocrites.

We are not hypocrites to begin with, marriage is for men and women(to each other) only.

You and others on here saying it isnt, will never change that.

But the majority of society isnt really that keen on it, are they.
Are you implying America is ruled by the will of the majority? :p

If you had read my source of Research, you would realize that in America the majority must concede to the will of the minority.

Oh thats really logical, sorry but it doesnt really work.

We are not hypocrites to begin with, marriage is for men and women(to each other) only.

You and others on here saying it isnt, will never change that.

Marriage is currently defined as being between men and women. In the past it was between people of the same race only, and before that it made a woman a man's property. Definitions change, and one must accept the change when it comes or be left behind.
Besides, we are still being hypocrites because we are denying one group of people rights that we allow other groups of people.

Just a side note, Gwen Steffani of No Doubt was born a hermaphrodite.
suuure...

google.com :p

Are you implying America is ruled by the will of the majority? :p


Yeah, as it should be, see your last election result.

Yeah hes a schmuck sometimes, but at least he backs his country, not what

minority groups believe is more important.

Oh thats really logical, sorry but it doesnt really work.
If you do not explain why my argument doesn't work, then you have made no argument yourself.

I have 2 lesbian friends who want to get married when/if it becomes legal in the UK. :fluffle: I'm in favour of them, and so gay marriage! I wasn't sure about gays until they began going out and now I view them as just another facet of the diamond called society!!! Nice and poetic, don' cha' fink?

Yeah, as it should be, see your last election result.

Yeah hes a schmuck sometimes, but at least he backs his country, not what

minority groups believe is more important.
Not only was that irrelevant, but in 2000 George Bush lost the popular vote by half a million votes, but was still elected.

Just one instance where the majority does NOT rule.

We have a constitution, and no majority of Americans can change it (only Congress can do that).

A majority of Americans supported slavery at one time too.

[QUOTE=Northern Trombonium]Marriage is currently defined as being between men and women. In the past it was between people of the same race only, and before that it made a woman a man's property.

I think men and women are each others and only each others property, in

marriage.

The same race marriages was usually for the peoples own good back then,

and thats too deep to go into right now.


Definitions change, and one must accept the change when it comes or be left behind.

I'll gladly be left behind then, sooooo if the definition of marriage becomes in

the future man and woman only, you would see that as correct.

Besides, we are still being hypocrites because we are denying one group of people rights that we allow other groups of people.

Theres a good reason for that, its called morality.

Theres a good reason for that, its called morality.
I know you said no discrimination rants, but this is hardly a rant, and you (inadvertently) brought it up.
How is it morally acceptable to discriminate against one group of people?

if the definition of marriage becomes in

the future man and woman only, you would see that as correct
that is the current definition, so it could not "become" that definition. Obviously I believe it is time for a change, otherwise we would not be disagreeing.

Theres a good reason for that, its called morality.

Isn't that the usual excuse? :rolleyes:

Isn't that the usual excuse? :rolleyes:
Morality! :p

Let's ban divorce and premarital sex as well!

Morality! :p

Let's ban divorce and premarital sex as well!

Hey good idea! Maybe run for prez with those as ballot initiatives. :D

It's 1:32 AM here in Flagstaff, Arizona, and I need to be up at 7 or so for an 8 AM class, so this is goodnight. If Terminalia tries to refute my arguments, Im trusting you guys to defend them intelligently.
Goodnight.

Hey good idea! Maybe run for prez with those as ballot initiatives. :D
Chodolo 2008!

Taking yall back to midieval Europe... ;)

Morality! :p

Let's ban divorce and premarital sex as well!
So, sarcasm aside, you advocate divorce and pre-marital sex as a step forward in the progress of society? I entirely agree. Let us subject our children to the emotional pain of multiple divorces so that us adults can shag around in a manner justified by the government. Let us also introduce our children to the joys of Chlamydia, AIDS, syphilis etc. These things get a bad press but we should see them for the character building processes that they really are.

The government should quit telling us what we can and can't do. WE KNOW BEST

Im not really sure so, i posted both sides of what i can think of

WHY NO-

No, Gay marriage just dosent make sense,

Defenition of Marriage
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife

If there is two men or two women it really isnt a marriage, I think they should call it something like a union but not marriage,

Defenition of Union
The act of uniting or the state of being united

WHY YES-

Yes, alot of things change in the past and i do belive this will also, some people have said that in the bible it says that for a man to lay in bed with another man or something like that is a sin... But, long ago they said that Black people were cursed and that sounds retarted now and days to most people. Will gay marraiges be the same? I wonder if people will look back to days like this and say how ignorant all the people were saying no to it.

So, sarcasm aside, you advocate divorce and pre-marital sex as a step forward in the progress of society? I entirely agree. Let us subject our children to the emotional pain of multiple divorces so that us adults can shag around in a manner justified by the government. Let us also introduce our children to the joys of Chlamydia, AIDS, syphilis etc. These things get a bad press but we should see them for the character building processes that they really are.
I will advocate divorce way before I will advocate loveless marriages. Yes, even loveless marriages with children. You are being dishonest to yourself if you stay in a bad marriage "because of the kids". By all means try to make it work, but if not, you should not submit yourself to further torment by sticking with your spouse.

As well, I think pre-marital sex is definately a good thing, as is living together before marriage. Better than finding out after you're married that you make a terrible couple.

Oh, and about the STDs, wear a friggen condom. Problem solved. People need to be EDUCATED, not scared.

The government should quit telling us what we can and can't do. WE KNOW BEST
Agree with the first part, don't necessarily agree with the second part. We may not know best, but it's through experience and choice that we find out what is best for ourselves. NOT by what the government tells us. That's just personal responsibility.

OK, I havn't checked this thread for a long time.
First of all, I agree with most of you there that this is just like those days when you couldn't marry someone from another race, so most likely it will change.
Second, could term please explain why it was for our own good for people not to have marriages with people of different races?
Third, I won't be checking this for a week or so after today so goodbye everyone, see you in a week.

P.S I will still be around for the rest of today though...

I will advocate divorce way before I will advocate loveless marriages. Yes, even loveless marriages with children. You are being dishonest to yourself if you stay in a bad marriage "because of the kids". By all means try to make it work, but if not, you should not submit yourself to further torment by sticking with your spouse.
So how would you go about instigating a loveless marriage these days? Would it in fact be by marrying someone you didn't have a clue about but just wanted to have sex with? You'll say that people grow apart. So why would they marry if they haven't fully grown emotionally and psychologically? Is that irresponsible?

As well, I think pre-marital sex is definately a good thing, as is living together before marriage. Better than finding out after you're married that you make a terrible couple.

Oh, and about the STDs, wear a friggen condom. Problem solved. People need to be EDUCATED, not scared.
Condoms have a 95% success rate, last I checked. You add the precondition that to initiate pre-marital sex one should be mentally and physically capable of taking the necessary precautions. That's about a 90% rate overall I'd guess (ha ha, 88.5% of statistics are made up on the spot). The rate for physically safe sex reduces still further. The psychological effect of multiple sexual partners is more far-reaching.

..And you'd base a relationship wholly on sex? hmm

Define education. At age 9, my school taught sex ed (pre 90's). Easily half the people in that class would have gone out and had sex before the UK age of consent with no thought of STI's or unwanted pregnancies. Maybe pre 90's there wasn't as much emphasis on the dangers of STI's as there is now. There was still some. You can lead a horse to water...

Second, could term please explain why it was for our own good for people not to have marriages with people of different races?
I'd guess Term was talking about the restrictions on marriage laid down for the israelites. That would have been because other races would be worshipping different gods and idols. Marriage to these other races would, slowly but surely, have drawn the Israelites away from worshipping God.

So how would you go about instigating a loveless marriage these days? Would it in fact be by marrying someone you didn't have a clue about but just wanted to have sex with? You'll say that people grow apart. So why would they marry if they haven't fully grown emotionally and psychologically? Is that irresponsible?
I'd say it's irresponsible to have kids if you aren't prepared to raise them in a loving family, but things happen, people change. I see nothing wrong with divorce, only wish that people would be more careful before getting married.

Condoms have a 95% success rate, last I checked.
For STD's? 1 in 20 failure rate? Seems awfully high. Maybe people don't know how to put on a rubber correctly. This calls for more education.

And you'd base a relationship wholly on sex? hmm
No. Where did you get that from? Just because you are not married doesn't mean you don't love the person. (Even if you don't love them, if it works for the two of you, go ahead.)

Define education. At age 9, my school taught sex ed (pre 90's). Easily half the people in that class would have gone out and had sex before the UK age of consent with no thought of STI's or unwanted pregnancies. Maybe pre 90's there wasn't as much emphasis on the dangers of STI's as there is now. There was still some. You can lead a horse to water...
Sex ed is a joke in America. "IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU WILL DIE."

Condoms should be readily available to students, like dispensers in the bathrooms, anonymous requests to the counselor's office, things like that. It's this culture of prudishness and deceit about sex that has caused so much problems and hurt regarding sexuality.

I'm not against gay marriage per say.. what I do object to is all and sundry using it as propoganda.. and I mean people on both sides, so to speak. Why can't everyone just let such marriages take place the same as heterosexual marriages.. we don't need press releases about it, either for or against!

I'd say it's irresponsible to have kids if you aren't prepared to raise them in a loving family, but things happen, people change. I see nothing wrong with divorce, only wish that people would be more careful before getting married.

For STD's? 1 in 20 failure rate? Seems awfully high. Maybe people don't know how to put on a rubber correctly. This calls for more education.
I said condoms have a 95% SUCCESS rate. That means 95% of condoms initally employed correctly will not split or fall off. Not that 95% of users do not contract an STI.

What things happen that should make you love the person you've got to know extremely well less? Divorce is usually (mass generalisation coming up) for the purposes of those who:
a) don't want to face up to the fact that they are idiots
b) want to justify said idiocy.
But you're right in that people should be a lot more careful who they marry.

No. Where did you get that from? Just because you are not married doesn't mean you don't love the person. (Even if you don't love them, if it works for the two of you, go ahead.)
I got that from you saying that people would base their compatibility on whether their sex was good.

Sex ed is a joke in America. "IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU WILL DIE."

Condoms should be readily available to students, like dispensers in the bathrooms, anonymous requests to the counselor's office, things like that. It's this culture of prudishness and deceit about sex that has caused so much problems and hurt regarding sexuality.
In the UK sex ed. is not a joke. Currently under-age girls are able to get birth control measures anonymously from chemists and probably soon from their schools. Similar with boys condom-wise. However, technically this encourages them to break the law by making it easier to do so. How is that a good idea. If the government can realise that the law is being broken so easily they should either amend it or enforce it.

I said condoms have a 95% SUCCESS rate. That means 95% of condoms initally employed correctly will not split or fall off. Not that 95% of users do not contract an STI.
I find it hard to believe any respectable condom company would sell a product that breaks 1 in 20 times!

What things happen that should make you love the person you've got to know extremely well less? Divorce is usually (mass generalisation coming up) for the purposes of those who:
a) don't want to face up to the fact that they are idiots
b) want to justify said idiocy.
But you're right in that people should be a lot more careful who they marry.
I didn't put too much thought into it, I just believe there is nothing fundamentally wrong with divorce. I just want to see people happy, and staying in a bad marriage is worse than just ending it.

I got that from you saying that people would base their compatibility on whether their sex was good.
Oh, I wasn't very clear, my emphasis was on the living together, which includes sex. Sort of a pre-marriage, before jumping into marriage. I believe there would be a lot less divorce if people just lived together a bit beforehand.

In the UK sex ed. is not a joke. Currently under-age girls are able to get birth control measures anonymously from chemists and probably soon from their schools. Similar with boys condom-wise.
Once again, I am amazed at how backwards America appears when compared to Europe (and Canada). Over here we have something called "abstinence-only" education. Hah.

However, technically this encourages them to break the law by making it easier to do so. How is that a good idea. If the government can realise that the law is being broken so easily they should either amend it or enforce it.
The law? You mean having teen sex?

In any case, teens are gonna screw no matter what we tell them. Better to make sure they're informed and protected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schnappslant
I said condoms have a 95% SUCCESS rate. That means 95% of condoms initally employed correctly will not split or fall off. Not that 95% of users do not contract an STI.


I find it hard to believe any respectable condom company would sell a product that breaks 1 in 20 times!

Why not, that is the correct analysis of the warning label on a box of Trojan condoms, Lifestyles, and Duratex.

Oh, I wasn't very clear, my emphasis was on the living together, which includes sex. Sort of a pre-marriage, before jumping into marriage. I believe there would be a lot less divorce if people just lived together a bit beforehand.

Intuitive, yes, accurate, unfortunately not. The impact of living together prior to marriage is a higher divorce rate. See research conducted on the topic such as the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

In any case, teens are gonna screw no matter what we tell them. Better to make sure they're informed and protected.

Agreed.

Intuitive, yes, accurate, unfortunately not. The impact of living together prior to marriage is a higher divorce rate. See research conducted on the topic such as the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

..which could mean those less likely to consider divorce tend not to cohabitate etc., prior to marriage.

I voted no, because i dont see how two men or two women being together can further the human race.

If everyone ends up gay, we die out.

I voted no, because i dont see how two men or two women being together can further the human race.
Nor can your grannie and grandpa. Nor can infertile couples. Nor can people who SIMPLY DONT WANT KIDS.

Sheesh, since when was procreation a necessity for marriage?

If everyone ends up gay, we die out.
Do you think before you type? Homosexuality is not a disease, it's not something that will "catch on" or "spread". And you are worrying about humanity dying out? No, humanity is spreading at quite a fast rate, but people themselves are dying yes, dying from starvation in overpopulated areas.

If you are not worried about "turning gay" you shouldn't worry about everyone else turning gay.

Why not, that is the correct analysis of the warning label on a box of Trojan condoms, Lifestyles, and Duratex.
I'm gonna check that. I suspect the failure rate is far less than 5% for people that know what they're doing.

Intuitive, yes, accurate, unfortunately not. The impact of living together prior to marriage is a higher divorce rate. See research conducted on the topic such as the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
I spoke before researching. You are correct. But as New Fuglies said, this is probably due to the mindsets of people who cohabitate, as opposed to those who marry first. I wonder which groups reports being more satisfied with their marriage, those who lived together first or those who didn't? I stand by my statement that a divorce is better than a bad marriage.

Of course i think before i type.

Gay is not normal, sticking your cock up another mans arse is not normal, why should this be accepted as normal.
I dont give a fuck if you want to be gay, just realise that its not normal behavior.

Stop banging on about your fucking rights.

If two people seriously love and care for one another, and want to spend their lives together...I see no reason why it wouldn't be appropriate. Or at least be able to have civil unions that recognize them as a couple in the eyes of the law.

Asylum Nova

i agree completely with the above veiw... an argument often used is that it could be bad for the kids/kids need parents of both gender... the way i see it the only reason a child could be worse off as a child in that relationship would be because of other people... if the parents love eachother and love their child their would be nothing negative coming from that enviroment... its the people on the outside who contribute that... and as to having parent of each gender, people usually have close friends and they can help be this sort of role model if it is required (eg during puberty)... i think bush deserves to have a pole shoved up his ass for being so pigheaded, when i heard about him speaking against it i tried to attack the radio...
[bush] :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: hehe

Gay is not normal, sticking your cock up another mans arse is not normal, why should this be accepted as normal.
I dont give a fuck if you want to be gay, just realise that its not normal behavior.
How about when a guy sticks his cock up a woman's ass? Is that normal? Or when a woman places her lips around a man's penis? Or when a man places his penis between a woman's breasts? Or when a man licks out a woman's vagina? OR when a woman licks out a woman's vagina?

Screw your "normal behavior".

Stop banging on about your fucking rights.
Quote of the day, there.

I'm sorry if you have confused me with someone who gives a fuck.

You dont get it do you, I dont care.

Get out more.

Of course i think before i type.

Gay is not normal, sticking your cock up another mans arse is not normal, why should this be accepted as normal.
I dont give a fuck if you want to be gay, just realise that its not normal behavior.

Stop banging on about your fucking rights.

since you seem to be such an expert on what normal is, please explain it to me... cause last i checked there was no such thing as normal. average yes, normal no. and if you can come up wiht a proper definition, then perhaps you can explain to me why you get to choose what's normal and whats not. what homosexual people ask for is the same everyday human-rights everone else gets, they arent asking for any special treatment, they're asking to be treated like people. maybe you dont have any interest in the same sex, that's great for you but does not give you a right to judge others. what they do with their lives, who they love, who they marry, just like with straight couples, is none of your or anyone elses business.

See my last quote.
I dont give a fuck.

Gay aint normal. The end.

Tell someone who cares.

Gay marriage should be banned because these people are only trying to use their sexuality to get special priveleges. if you've read the bill of rights lately, you'd know that right now everyone in the United States is equal.

Gay marriage should be banned because these people are only trying to use their sexuality to get special priveleges. if you've read the bill of rights lately, you'd know that right now everyone in the United States is equal.
How are they trying to get special priveliages? They just want their love for each other to be acknowledged by the state and to have the same rights as married couples.

I voted no, because i dont see how two men or two women being together can further the human race.

If everyone ends up gay, we die out.

So all those who cannot reproduce should not marry? This includes the infertile, your grandparents, and cancer victims.

And not everyone is going to end up gay AS ITS NOT A CHOICE. Could YOU choose to be gay tomorrow?

I'm sorry if you have confused me with someone who gives a fuck.

You dont get it do you, I dont care.

Get out more.

Then why are you posting here? To be deliberately insulting and inflamatory? Mod please.

Gay marriage should be banned because these people are only trying to use their sexuality to get special priveleges. if you've read the bill of rights lately, you'd know that right now everyone in the United States is equal.

Actually, if you'd read the bill of rights (or more appropriately the entire constitution) you'd know that everyone is SUPPOSED to be equal. However, that is rarely true in this country. There are only a set number of rights set by the Bill of Rights. The rest are regulated by the congress and the states.

When a group of rights are presented to heterosexuals (provided that they marry the person they love) but are denied to homosexuals (who cannot legally marry the person they love) then not all people are equal.

I don't get your logic in saying we are asking for special rights when what we are asking for is EQUAL rights.

I'm for gay marriage.

What the hell ever happened to seperation of church & state??

I'm for gay marriage.

What the hell ever happened to seperation of church & state??

What happened to the separation? The communist era in Russia happened to it. Here in the US, we reacted by focusing on our freedom of religion. In God We Trust became our national motto (previously it was E Pluribus Unim) and "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Unfortunantely it went beyond that. The powerful Christian right managed to warp many people's views of our nation's history and convince them we were founded on Christian principles (which we are not). That misinformation has continued into the present and its really quite sad. Instead of being the land of free people, all to often we are the land of free Christians and those other people who are expected to keep their mouths closed.

I voted no, because i dont see how two men or two women being together can further the human race.

If everyone ends up gay, we die out.
I'm infertile thus cannot further the human race so should i not be allowed to get married?

And the chances that everyone turns out gay? Please and anyway if everyone did decide to be gay then we have enough scientific technology to maintain birth rates.

I'm infertile thus cannot further the human race so should i not be allowed to get married?

No, because when a man and a woman can't/won't have kids, a magical pixie faerie weasel appears and sprinkles some magic dust that makes your marriage ok.

No, because when a man and a woman can't/won't have kids, a magical pixie faerie weasel appears and sprinkles some magic dust that makes your marriage ok.
Can I get some of that dust?

cause it would be really usefull for just casual sex :P

I'm sorry if you have confused me with someone who gives a fuck.

You dont get it do you, I dont care.

Get out more.
Then why are you posting?

So how would you go about instigating a loveless marriage these days? Would it in fact be by marrying someone you didn't have a clue about but just wanted to have sex with? You'll say that people grow apart. So why would they marry if they haven't fully grown emotionally and psychologically? Is that irresponsible?


Condoms have a 95% success rate, last I checked. You add the precondition that to initiate pre-marital sex one should be mentally and physically capable of taking the necessary precautions. That's about a 90% rate overall I'd guess (ha ha, 88.5% of statistics are made up on the spot). The rate for physically safe sex reduces still further. The psychological effect of multiple sexual partners is more far-reaching.

..And you'd base a relationship wholly on sex? hmm

Define education. At age 9, my school taught sex ed (pre 90's). Easily half the people in that class would have gone out and had sex before the UK age of consent with no thought of STI's or unwanted pregnancies. Maybe pre 90's there wasn't as much emphasis on the dangers of STI's as there is now. There was still some. You can lead a horse to water...


I'd guess Term was talking about the restrictions on marriage laid down for the israelites. That would have been because other races would be worshipping different gods and idols. Marriage to these other races would, slowly but surely, have drawn the Israelites away from worshipping God.


Marrying people just to have sex with them IS closer to the bible model... so a marriage for sex is MORE pure than these 'lovey-dovey' marriages we have today.

(Look at the history of a thousand years ago if you want more detail on that... marriage for 'love' is a very new invention).

Re: sex education... a big issue in the states, where Bush's regime is currently re-engineering the education system to totally remove sex education from classrooms, and replace it with the notorious 'abstinence education' program.

WHY???? It was finally going to die, why did you have to bring the thread back???

*Insert uncontrollable weeping*

WHY???? It was finally going to die, why did you have to bring the thread back???

*Insert uncontrollable weeping*

If you don't want it to go on, don't read it. It won't bother you then.

I said condoms have a 95% SUCCESS rate. That means 95% of condoms initally employed correctly will not split or fall off. Not that 95% of users do not contract an STI.

What things happen that should make you love the person you've got to know extremely well less? Divorce is usually (mass generalisation coming up) for the purposes of those who:
a) don't want to face up to the fact that they are idiots
b) want to justify said idiocy.
But you're right in that people should be a lot more careful who they marry.


I got that from you saying that people would base their compatibility on whether their sex was good.


In the UK sex ed. is not a joke. Currently under-age girls are able to get birth control measures anonymously from chemists and probably soon from their schools. Similar with boys condom-wise. However, technically this encourages them to break the law by making it easier to do so. How is that a good idea. If the government can realise that the law is being broken so easily they should either amend it or enforce it.

How do you think a condom ENCOURAGES sex?

Be serious... those kids are going to have sex ANYWAY. If you can get them protected, and therefore, lower the risks of STD's and teen-pregnancy - how can that be a bad thing?

Remember when you were 13... was it condoms that made you want sex? No - it was the raging hormones that had started kicking in... but, being a reasonable individual... if birth control had been openly available... even WITH raging hormones... you would have been more likely to have LOWER RISK sex.

Distribution of condoms in small areas in the United States has not led to an increase in underage sex in the area. Just a note.

Of course i think before i type.

Gay is not normal, sticking your cock up another mans arse is not normal, why should this be accepted as normal.
I dont give a fuck if you want to be gay, just realise that its not normal behavior.

Stop banging on about your fucking rights.

Ah, another Terminalia-type.

You, my friend, just admitted you vote against homosexual union, because men showing each other affection makes you uncomfortable.

I note: you didn't mention how unnatural the same activity might be in women... which is hardly surprising, because most 'supposedly heterosexual males' consider lesbianism to be erotic.

I also note: you are not talking about homosexuality... your focus is ENTIRELY on the act of penetration, by one man, of another man. I think you should examine your own insecurities, to see why YOU PERSONALLY find that image so... compelling.

I further note that you finish your 'post' with a flippant comment about 'rights'... and yet you take for granted your 'right' to express yourself on this platform.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]Not only was that irrelevant, but in 2000 George Bush lost the popular vote by half a million votes, but was still elected.

Thats just sheer leftist fantasising.


We have a constitution, and no majority of Americans can change it (only Congress can do that).

Ah but who elects your members to congress.

Who ever is in there, is there because a majority got him there.


A majority of Americans supported slavery at one time too.

So did the rest of the world, slavery is a necessary thing in building

civilisations, without the free man power everywhere, things just wouldnt

have started to happen.

As civilisations became more advanced and started to develop machinary,

that could do the labour of people,slavery became unpopular.

What Im getting at here is, nobody probably ever really liked slavery much,

but they knew it was necessary.

When it started to become unnecessary, they started to question its

existance.

The grandisement modern people like to spin on with, is that people

started to become more sensitive and more ethical about issues like this, is

not really true, people havent changed that much at all, if the present day

world technology collapsed, and we all went back into widely spread societys

that had no technology, especially to help with manual labour, slavery would

be reintroduced within five to ten years.

This would set up people in power that once there would of course know

why, slavery.

Any knowlege, or people with knowlege that could help illeviate slavery with

technology would be brutally supressed.


Who exactly would be the slaves in a particular country, would be decided by

who is in power, and of course how brutal they are able to be.

Womens lib, gay rights etc are a flow on from slavery being recognised as no

longer necessary or right for modern society, the only real reason we have

womens lib etc is because of technology, it isnt because its some natural

progression of the human species.

Slavery returning world wide as a labour force, would probably see a reverse

of this and other 'disadvantaged' groups given equal rights, because of the

different conditions society would be living in.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Ah, another Terminalia-type.

Snap out of it Grave, I present my opinion alot differently than this.

See my last quote.
I dont give a fuck.

Gay aint normal. The end.

Tell someone who cares.

I would suggest a psychology text book, and reference to the word 'compulsion'...

Are you back again?

For someone who doesn't care, who finds it all so distasteful.... you just keep coming back, and telling us how much you hate it...

While you are looking in that book, see if it has any case studies on causes of homophobia...

[QUOTE]You, my friend, just admitted you vote against homosexual union, because men showing each other affection makes you uncomfortable.

So in your narrow scope, on men showing each other affection,

homosexuality is the only field this can happen on.

I love my father and brother, male cousins etc but according to you, I cant

possibly, because it would make me uncomfortable, as it would suggest

homosexual connitations.

May I suggest that it is gay men showing each other affection he is

uncomfortable with, as I am, not men in general.

So in your narrow scope, on men showing each other affection,
homosexuality is the only field this can happen on.
I love my father and brother, male cousins etc but according to you, I cant
possibly, because it would make me uncomfortable, as it would suggest
homosexual connitations.
May I suggest that it is gay men showing each other affection he is
uncomfortable with, as I am, not men in general.

Which just goes to show how bigotted you really are. Never mind that unless they are making out (which no one should do in public), you wouldn't be able to tell a hug between gay men from a hug between cousins.

Grave_n_idle[/B]]
While you are looking in that book, see if it has any case studies on causes of homophobia...


This old chestnut. :rolleyes:

Has it ever occurred to you, that alot of heterosexual men are not

homophobic, but still are repulsed by homosexuality.

In your book, the PC one, these guys can not really be heterosexual, because according to you, their insecure.

I would say the opposite, their secure in being heterosexual, and dont need

to be ambiviant about gays, to prove this.

Its not hatred Grave, its disgust.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Which just goes to show how bigotted you really are.

Well your a bigot for trying to supress someones opinion.

Never mind that unless they are making out (which no one should do in public), you wouldn't be able to tell a hug between gay men from a hug between cousins.

Um gay men also kiss when they hug, sooo...

Well your a bigot for trying to supress someones opinion.

Who said anything about suppressing anyone's opinion?

Um gay men also kiss when they hug, sooo...

In many cultures, so do straight men. Point?

Well your a bigot for trying to supress someones opinion.



Your lack of understanding of the English language continues to astound me. No one has suggested suppressing your opinion. We've said you're wrong, but no one has denied your freedom of speech (which as I believe it was Twain who said "People often demand freedom of speech as compensation for the freedom of thought that they seldom use.")



Um gay men also kiss when they hug, sooo...

Not always. Just like straight people don't always kiss when they hug.

Thats just sheer leftist fantasising.
Gore 50,999,897
Bush 50,456,002

Electoral votes: Bush 271, Gore 267.

America is NOT ruled by the majority, and you look like an idiot for denying that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000.


Ah but who elects your members to congress.

Who ever is in there, is there because a majority got him there.
Not the majority of America. Districts are drawn, states have different numbers of reprentatives, all states have two senators. Congress does not pass laws purely on the majority of all of America.

And, lest we forget, we are bound by the constitution, and more than a simply majority is needed to amend that.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Who said anything about suppressing anyone's opinion?

By throwing names like bigot, that is what you are attempting to do, dont

deny it either.



In many cultures, so do straight men. Point?

Point is straight men in most cultures dont , some do, but this is a sign of

respect more than anything, and has nothing to do with homosexuality.

This is usually a peck on the cheek, where as gay men.. dear oh dear.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Your lack of understanding of the English language continues to astound me. No one has suggested suppressing your opinion. We've said you're wrong, but no one has denied your freedom of speech (which as I believe it was Twain who said "People often demand freedom of speech as compensation for the freedom of thought that they seldom use.")

I dont think I'm wrong, and a minority that is way too loud and opinionated

for its size, isnt going to change that either.

You could learn alot from Twains little witticism yourself.

As for you not denying my freedom of speech, 'Ill take that with a grain of

salt, how can you deny it on the internet?

Im sure if it was face to face it would be another story.

It is now illegal in some countrys to even critise homosexuality, as its

portrayed as a hate crime, you would support this too.

Because im homophobic and seeing them together gives me bad mental pictures

[QUOTE=Chodolo]Gore 50,999,897
Bush 50,456,002
Electoral votes: Bush 271, Gore 267.
America is NOT ruled by the majority, and you look like an idiot for denying that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000.

Didnt Gore conceed but, too bad then.


Not the majority of America. Districts are drawn, states have different numbers of reprentatives, all states have two senators. Congress does not pass laws purely on the majority of all of America.

Well that could be the problem then, not listening to what the people want.


And, lest we forget, we are bound by the constitution, and more than a simply majority is needed to amend that.


But a loud minority thinks it can.

Everyone should be allowed to be married; marriage is an act of love. I would like to see little babies get married. It would be cute. I think we should marry our pets and even our house plants. It's just a piece of paper guys, even if noone gets married everything will still be the same.

LOL, Homosexual!

Everyone should be allowed to be married; marriage is an act of love. I would like to see little babies get married. It would be cute. I think we should marry our pets and even our house plants. It's just a piece of paper guys, even if noone gets married everything will still be the same.

you are a real moron. its just a bit of paper. its not about the paper its about what it symbolises and the fact that in its origional concept regardless of if your pro gay marriage or not marriage was origionally intended for a man and a woman. it should be changed yes but churches should not have to change the way they do things just to please the gays

Everyone should be allowed to be married; marriage is an act of love. I would like to see little babies get married. It would be cute. I think we should marry our pets and even our house plants. It's just a piece of paper guys, even if noone gets married everything will still be the same.

And how long have you been on acid?

[QUOTE]

By throwing names like bigot, that is what you are attempting to do, dont

deny it either.



Calling someone what they are has nothing to do with trying to silence your opinion. If we were doing that we would be having a mod ban you, the police arrest you or something along those lines.



Point is straight men in most cultures dont , some do, but this is a sign of

respect more than anything, and has nothing to do with homosexuality.

This is usually a peck on the cheek, where as gay men.. dear oh dear.

Not all gay men involve themselves in public displays of affection.

you are a real moron. its just a bit of paper. its not about the paper its about what it symbolises and the fact that in its origional concept regardless of if your pro gay marriage or not marriage was origionally intended for a man and a woman. it should be changed yes but churches should not have to change the way they do things just to please the gays

There already are churches that marry homosexuals. Maybe even your church. And the original idea of marriage was the bringing together of two families, so SNAP who's the moron neeeow!

[QUOTE]
I dont think I'm wrong, and a minority that is way too loud and opinionated

for its size, isnt going to change that either.
[QUOTE]

I'm glad you don't think you are wrong. If you did and continued to espouse the drivel that comes out of your mouth, there would be even more serious doubts about your intelligence.

[QUOTE]
You could learn alot from Twains little witticism yourself.


My views have been well-thought out and researched and backed by scientists that you have been unable to show as biased. My rebuttles of your views have bene the same. You on the other hand have given only sources that are easily refuted, ignored some of my sources, and say "Noh-uh" against the ones you couldn't understand.


As for you not denying my freedom of speech, 'Ill take that with a grain of

salt, how can you deny it on the internet?


You're the one who said that people are trying to surpress your opinion.


Im sure if it was face to face it would be another story.


I believe you have a right to speak your uneducated, bigotted viewpoints in person or online. Fortunantely I have the happy right to continue proving you wrong and to show your views for what they are--bigotry of the worst kind because it is willfully ignorant.


It is now illegal in some countrys to even critise homosexuality, as its

portrayed as a hate crime, you would support this too.

Name them please.

And in this hypothetical situation, I would be opposed to such laws if they stand the way you think they do. Now, I would have a problem if such speech was libelous (that means untrue with the intent of hurting someone's reputation) or threatening (that means to engender fear for one's safety or the safety of those around one or one's property). However, libel and threats are already covered under law.

[QUOTE]
But a loud minority thinks it can.

No one on the gay rights group has proposed amending it. We realize that it already guarantees us equal rights without amendments. The only amendments that have been proposed are by members of the radical right who think we are a Christian nation that should be enforcing their morals on others.

you are a real moron. its just a bit of paper. its not about the paper its about what it symbolises and the fact that in its origional concept regardless of if your pro gay marriage or not marriage was origionally intended for a man and a woman. it should be changed yes but churches should not have to change the way they do things just to please the gays

No one has proposed forcing churches to marry gay couples. In this country, at least, you can get married outside of a church by a judge or a justice-of-the-peace.

There already are churches that marry homosexuals. Maybe even your church. And the original idea of marriage was the bringing together of two families, so SNAP who's the moron neeeow!

is that why they were anulled? is that why the pope is aganist it dickhead? and where in the bible do two men get married, true it is about 2 families but 2 families through a man an a women and by the way gay marriage cant produce children like real families like it was ment for

is that why they were anulled? is that why the pope is aganist it dickhead? and where in the bible do two men get married, true it is about 2 families but 2 families through a man an a women and by the way gay marriage cant produce children like real families like it was ment for

They were annulled because the right-wing fundamentalists have absconded with our government (grante d the ones in CA were pseudo-illegal). Further, the pope has no say in the affairs of non-Catholics and certainly not in our nation's government. But since you brought it up, if you scroll back through this thread (I think it was this one) there was a nice link that shared archaeological evidence that the catholic church once santioned same sex unions.

And if you want to talk about the inability to reproduce--do you think infertile couples should not be allowed to marry? What about the elderly women who are past menopause. Should they have to get a divorce?

They were annulled because the right-wing fundamentalists have absconded with our government (grante d the ones in CA were pseudo-illegal). Further, the pope has no say in the affairs of non-Catholics and certainly not in our nation's government. But since you brought it up, if you scroll back through this thread (I think it was this one) there was a nice link that shared archaeological evidence that the catholic church once santioned same sex unions.

And if you want to talk about the inability to reproduce--do you think infertile couples should not be allowed to marry? What about the elderly women who are past menopause. Should they have to get a divorce?

ever herd of IVF, im just saying that if gays can marry im not saying they should not have a civil union but that will put significant pressure on the church to accept gay marriage, much like the women who want to play at the augusta golf club

ever herd of IVF, im just saying that if gays can marry im not saying they should not have a civil union but that will put significant pressure on the church to accept gay marriage, much like the women who want to play at the augusta golf club

That doesn't really answer my question. Let me make it easier though. What about women who have had a complete hysterectomy because of ovarian cancer? CAn they get married?

Civil unions would be okay if they had all the rights of marriage and EVERYONE gay or straight got them as far as the government is concerned.

And saying that we shouldn't have gay marriage because it might put strain on churches is like saying that we shouldn't end slavery of African Americans because it might put a strain on members of the KKK to accep tthem as members of society.

Now, I don't know much about the Augusta Golf Club, however I know that I personally wouldn't be a member there if they discriminate against women.

is that why they were anulled? is that why the pope is aganist it dickhead? and where in the bible do two men get married, true it is about 2 families but 2 families through a man an a women and by the way gay marriage cant produce children like real families like it was ment for

My marriage was never anulled!

And who gives a snip about what the pope thinks anyway?!

There's gay people having babies all the time, don't you watch "Friends"?

You're just mad cause I'll do whatever I want and you can't stop it!

:)

im sorry, im against it, im christian and just don't think its morally right for gays to be able to be married. Its a sin!

-Bimini

That doesn't really answer my question. Let me make it easier though. What about women who have had a complete hysterectomy because of ovarian cancer? CAn they get married?

Civil unions would be okay if they had all the rights of marriage and EVERYONE gay or straight got them as far as the government is concerned.

And saying that we shouldn't have gay marriage because it might put strain on churches is like saying that we shouldn't end slavery of African Americans because it might put a strain on members of the KKK to accep tthem as members of society.

Now, I don't know much about the Augusta Golf Club, however I know that I personally wouldn't be a member there if they discriminate against women.

people can adopt, and the KKK is differwent from the churches, whilst the KKK is out wearing white hats and lynching the church is having bake sales see the difference?

im sorry, im against it, im christian and just don't think its morally right for gays to be able to be married. Its a sin!

-Bimini

Oh Jez, you sound like Kirk Cameron.

My marriage was never anulled!

And who gives a snip about what the pope thinks anyway?!

There's gay people having babies all the time, don't you watch "Friends"?

You're just mad cause I'll do whatever I want and you can't stop it!

:)

no im a big fan of do what you want in your own home. im not sure you should take social lessons from friends however much of a good show it may happen to be

people can adopt, and the KKK is differwent from the churches, whilst the KKK is out wearing white hats and lynching the church is having bake sales see the difference?

Gay people could adopt. Studies have shown that they are just as good of parents as straight people.

And while the KKK is busy trying to deny black people equal rights, many fundamentalists are busy trying to deny gay people (and often women) equal rights. See the similarity?

people can adopt, and the KKK is differwent from the churches, whilst the KKK is out wearing white hats and lynching the church is having bake sales see the difference?

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200311/r11486_27290.jpg

bake sales my ass. They're still a hateful bunch, every bit as bad as the KKK, in many churches.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200311/r11486_27290.jpg

bake sales my ass. They're still a hateful bunch, every bit as bad as the KKK, in many churches.

well you must deal with the wrong churches my friend, my church teaches inclusion and tolorence etc all that stuff and things

well you must deal with the wrong churches my friend, my church teaches inclusion and tolorence etc all that stuff and things

So why are you opposed to gay marriage?

So why are you opposed to gay marriage?

i can have a personal opinion, i think htey should have civil unions or start their own church, for example if i was a policy maker i would not let my decisions be compromised by what i think other people sould be doing with their personal lives i can disaprove but i wont act on it.

i can have a personal opinion, i think htey should have civil unions or start their own church, for example if i was a policy maker i would not let my decisions be compromised by what i think other people sould be doing with their personal lives i can disaprove but i wont act on it.

A. We are talking about the legal recognition of gay marriages and the granting of equal rights to gay couples.
B. There are already gay churches out there.
C. Several mainstream denominations have sanctioned gay weddings and are considering expanding.
D. You can get legally married without going to a church. Its called a civil marriage and is performed by a justice-of-the-peace or a judge.

So, do you think the government should recognize gay marriages?

A. We are talking about the legal recognition of gay marriages and the granting of equal rights to gay couples.
B. There are already gay churches out there.
C. Several mainstream denominations have sanctioned gay weddings and are considering expanding.
D. You can get legally married without going to a church. Its called a civil marriage and is performed by a justice-of-the-peace or a judge.

So, do you think the government should recognize gay marriages?

in order to fully recognise that "all men are created equal" etc yes they have to but that dosent make it right morally in my opinion

in order to fully recognise that "all men are created equal" etc yes they have to but that dosent make it right morally in my opinion

I can deal with that.

Thank you.

I can deal with that.

Thank you.

thanks i have some problems understanding the exact laws in the US as its not my coutry of orign so im not so clued up on your domestic politics

I said no, because I think marriage is over-rated and that gays are too good for marriage. I say that the gov. should not recognize even straight marriages. Let's call everything civil unions.

Damn Straight we won't listen to messed up christian morals bloody mass murderers

thanks i have some problems understanding the exact laws in the US as its not my coutry of orign so im not so clued up on your domestic politics

Basically our recent politics center around the Christians who think they founded this country on their beliefs in the name of Christ and the rest of us who actually know its history and that it is a secular nation that does not make laws concerning religion.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Calling someone what they are has nothing to do with trying to silence your opinion. If we were doing that we would be having a mod ban you, the police arrest you or something along those lines.

Ah but just calling someone a bigot because they are against gay marriage is

too broad a term anyway, in other words you are only looking for a quick end

to a debate by calling me a name that initiates ostracisation from fearful

people less they be tarred with the same brush.

Am I against black people, asians, arabs, because of who they are, no.

Therefore I am not a bigot here, am I against gays marrying by any means

available, yes I am, strongly, now I am, in your eyes anyway, a bigot.

What Im trying to get at is, you arent being very specific, maybe you should

say instead, partly bigoted.

Which I would accept.


Not all gay men involve themselves in public displays of affection.

Well they would be a very small minority I think.

[QUOTE=Pracus]My views have been well-thought out and researched and backed by scientists that you have been unable to show as biased. My rebuttles of your views have bene the same. You on the other hand have given only sources that are easily refuted, ignored some of my sources, and say "Noh-uh" against the ones you couldn't understand.
As if a scientist in this day and age would give a view against homosexuality

and marriage, he/she would be the victim, as has happenned in the past, of a

cowardly and nasty smear campaign.





I believe you have a right to speak your uneducated, bigotted viewpoints in person or online. Fortunantely I have the happy right to continue proving you wrong and to show your views for what they are--bigotry of the worst kind because it is willfully ignorant.

You call your views educated because they are PC, me disagreeing with them

doesnt make mine any less.

Name them please.

A priest in France was recently jailed for preaching against homosexuality, as

it was seen as a hate crime.

You cannot critisize homosexuality in Sweden either.

This is just the thin edge of the wedge, that will tear western society to bits

over the next seven or eight years.

And in this hypothetical situation, I would be opposed to such laws if they stand the way you think they do. Now, I would have a problem if such speech was libelous (that means untrue with the intent of hurting someone's reputation) or threatening (that means to engender fear for one's safety or the safety of those around one or one's property). However, libel and threats are already covered under law.

Tell that to past victims of smear campaigns guided under the umbrella of PC.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200311/r11486_27290.jpg

bake sales my ass. They're still a hateful bunch, every bit as bad as the KKK, in many churches.

Tell me. Why did we stop feeding these people to lions?

[QUOTE=Pracus]No one on the gay rights group has proposed amending it.

Yet.


We realize that it already guarantees us equal rights without amendments.


In your eyes it would, but I dont believe the founding fathers really

envisioned the country they were creating, would slide one day into such a

morally divided place.



The only amendments that have been proposed are by members of the radical right who think we are a Christian nation that should be enforcing their morals on others.

A majority of the people in the US see themselves as Christian in some form

or another, so whether your constitution states otherwise, that is what you

are.

And I dont think there are that many radical Christians in the US anyway,

anywhere for that matter.

Id say the only radicals you really have are the demented greens.

Tell me. Why did we stop feeding these people to lions?

Showing your true class here. :rolleyes:

How would you like to be fed to a lion, or worse, how would you like to watch

your child get dragged out of your arms first by a lion, and then eaten in

front of you.



Try and come up with an honest answer.

[QUOTE] Id say the only radicals you really have are the demented greens.
Yes, advocating protection of the environment, civil rights, and socialized healthcare is real radical.

How about the people in the picture I posted?

First off, I am not a homophobe.

The reason why I condone homosexual "marriage" is not because I disagree with homosexuality, but simply because of the term - marriage.
In my view marriage is an ancient tradition that is based on the union of one man and one woman. I believe that our old definition of the word should be upheld, and that therefore homosexuals should not be allowed to engage in a "marriage"

HOWEVER, I do support homosexual couples, and I believe they should be able to form "civil unions" with all the same benifits that married couples recieve.

marriage is religious, civil unions are... civil

Showing your true class here. :rolleyes:

How would you like to be fed to a lion, or worse, how would you like to watch

your child get dragged out of your arms first by a lion, and then eaten in

front of you.



Try and come up with an honest answer.

Sucks when people do that doesn't it?

How would you like to be mocked and called an abomination every time you walk on the street for being a Christian? How would you like it if, every day, you'd see atheists with signs saying "God hates Christians", "Christians will burn" and "all Christians must die"?
How would you like it if your government banned you from being married, because 'marriage is between two atheists only'? How would you like to be beaten to death, just because some people thought you were a Christian?
How would you like it when people claimed being Christian spreads AIDS? How would you like it when you are not allowed to adopt children because 'studies have shown that adoption by Christians is bad for children'?

One, marriage is when two people get together and announce their eternal love in front of many others. In the early church in Greece, there were several gay marriages.

Two, nothing in the New Testament says homosexuality is a sin, except in really terrible translations.

Three, legalising and encouraging gay marriage will make stable, gay relationships more acceptable. This will mean less STD spread, and less of gay people feeling ostracised. Don't forget that gays have a much higher suicide rate than straights, and there's a reason.

As for civil unions, that's a half way thing, but basically puts straights above gays.

Sucks when people do that doesn't it?

How would you like to be mocked and called an abomination every time you walk on the street for being a Christian? How would you like it if, every day, you'd see atheists with signs saying "God hates Christians", "Christians will burn" and "all Christians must die"?
How would you like it if your government banned you from being married, because 'marriage is between two atheists only'? How would you like to be beaten to death, just because some people thought you were a Christian?
How would you like it when people claimed being Christian spreads AIDS? How would you like it when you are not allowed to adopt children because 'studies have shown that adoption by Christians is bad for children'?

Actually, he and many christians would LOVE it.

my theroy is that many, many churches and christians WANT to be attacked and, thus, martyrd in their own fashion.

Really, there's nothing that's happier on the inside then a repressed christian.

How do you think a condom ENCOURAGES sex?

Be serious... those kids are going to have sex ANYWAY. If you can get them protected, and therefore, lower the risks of STD's and teen-pregnancy - how can that be a bad thing?
If parents bring up their kids saying 'you shouldn't really have sex at a young age THEN the schools say 'actually it's ok' by putting contraceptives dispensers in the toilet blocks, then kids will think 'hmm.. maybe it's ok then, despite what my parents think'. That's how I'd see it at least.

But yes, kids will go and screw whoever they want, whenever they want. However, the last time I checked, the law was "no-one has sex under the age of 16". My main point is: what's the point of a law if the government recognises that it is being broken on a regular basis but does not enforce or amend it.

However, the last time I checked, the law was "no-one has sex under the age of 16". My main point is: what's the point of a law if the government recognises that it is being broken on a regular basis but does not enforce or amend it.
actually, the law is "nobody can legally consent to sex under the age of 16." however, if both parties are under age, there is no crime because BOTH were non-consenting based on the legal definition. the law most certainly does prosecute statutory rape, which is the actual crime being outlined by that law, but it clearly cannot prosecute two children for "raping" each other.

*sigh*

I just want to move to a country not populated by religious people who have more of a say over the lives of other people than those people themselves.

If two people love each other, they should be alowed to marry each other. None of this bull of if gays can marry why not let people marry their pets crap! If two human beings of sound mind and at the correct age both consent to marriage they should be alowed to get married.

But no no no we cant have that! Because some religion there not even members of decided they shouldnt and black mailed the government into forcing their views onto others because since there are so many opressive chrisitans in the world if all of them where to not vote for somone more than likely they would lose a re election!

Why god! Why did you populate this world with such arrogant fuck tards! :headbang:

I want to move! I want to move somwhere where religion has no infulence and we can truly live free. But sadly such a place does not exist, religion has its claws in every government in the world so there is no such thing as a free world even in america which claims to be the country of the free but in reality its the country owned and run by chrisitans :(

I hate this world, i want to move to a mars colany where the chrisitans wont go because they refuse to leave the earth left to them by there god.

How would you like it when you are not allowed to adopt children because 'studies have shown that adoption by Christians is bad for children'?
interestingly, there IS a well-established correlation between religiosity of parents and child abuse. in fact, according to pretty much all studies on the subject, a child is nearly three times as likely to be abused by heterosexual parents as by homosexual parents.

of course, there are a number of factors to this. physical abuse generally stems from the "spare the rod, spoil the child" school of thought, and from families in which the husband/father sees himself as the king of the castle. abuse is far more likely to occur in such homes, both towards children and towards the wife/mother. additionally, males are by far the most likely to sexually abuse children, so gay homes with two mommies are (obviously) going to be able to provide a measure of safety by sheer virtue of gender. of course, gays in general are far less likely to sexual abuse children than heterosexuals are, but we'll ignore that...:P

Well looking around there realy is no need to rant back at the chrisitans for voting no to gay marrige.

Look at the poll, does it need to be any clearer? No one cares what you think anymore, we think gay marrige should be alowed regardless of what you say ;)

Look at the poll, does it need to be any clearer? No one cares what you think anymore, we think gay marrige should be alowed regardless of what you say ;)

Well thats the thing with polls/majorities.
When they agree with conservatives, it's the will of the people, but when they agree with liberals it's because of the 'liberal bias' on this forum.

Well looking around there realy is no need to rant back at the chrisitans for voting no to gay marrige.

Look at the poll, does it need to be any clearer? No one cares what you think anymore, we think gay marrige should be alowed regardless of what you say ;)

It's a poll answered by a bunch of little kids. Nobody listens to children.

It's a poll answered by a bunch of little kids. Nobody listens to children.
Not all of us are children

If parents bring up their kids saying 'you shouldn't really have sex at a young age THEN the schools say 'actually it's ok' by putting contraceptives dispensers in the toilet blocks, then kids will think 'hmm.. maybe it's ok then, despite what my parents think'. That's how I'd see it at least.

But yes, kids will go and screw whoever they want, whenever they want. However, the last time I checked, the law was "no-one has sex under the age of 16". My main point is: what's the point of a law if the government recognises that it is being broken on a regular basis but does not enforce or amend it.

Missing the point, though...

As you agree, 'the kids' are doing it anyway.

By refusing to educate about the risks of sex (Thanks, GW), and by making it difficult to obtain contraception, what is being gained?

The kids that were going to have sex anyway, are going to have unprotected sex, and with LESS idea about the risks.

It's a poll answered by a bunch of little kids. Nobody listens to children.

How is it that you have this 'inside knowledge' on the ages of the posters?

I suspect you have more to say than you have to back it up.

Missing the point, though...

As you agree, 'the kids' are doing it anyway.

By refusing to educate about the risks of sex (Thanks, GW), and by making it difficult to obtain contraception, what is being gained?

The kids that were going to have sex anyway, are going to have unprotected sex, and with LESS idea about the risks.
Agreed

For me the decision did not hinge on weather or not I had a condom … if I was going to do it I was going to do it …

But condoms in places that are accessible to me in privacy would have made PROTECTED sex way easier (lol horny teen I was going to have it one way or another) but to scared to go buy any (shy sometimes)

For me the decision did not hinge on weather or not I had a condom … if I was going to do it I was going to do it …

But condoms in places that are accessible to me in privacy would have made PROTECTED sex way easier (lol horny teen I was going to have it one way or another) but to scared to go buy any (shy sometimes)
heh heh, just made me think of the 'Men Behaving Badly' (Britcom) sketch in the chemists...
Man at Till (to salesgirl): umm.. can I have some coughsweets... and um.. some nicotine gum... and er..
Gary: Look, it's pretty obvious. He just wants a packet of condoms..

Missing the point, though...

As you agree, 'the kids' are doing it anyway.

By refusing to educate about the risks of sex (Thanks, GW), and by making it difficult to obtain contraception, what is being gained?

The kids that were going to have sex anyway, are going to have unprotected sex, and with LESS idea about the risks.
Another pertinant question is, 'why' would the kids be going to have sex anyway? Because it's fun. Why's it fun? Cos that bloke/woman off the telly/in the magazine/etc told me it was. Hmm. If I tell you that putting your arm in a woodchipper is fun would you believe me too? Would you go try it just to see if I was lying or not?

And Bottle.. if you have sex with someone who cannot legally consent to having sex then that is a crime. It doesn't matter if you yourself cannot legally consent either.

(back to topic of thread...) fox-hunting.. no, wait..

heh heh, just made me think of the 'Men Behaving Badly' (Britcom) sketch in the chemists...
Man at Till (to salesgirl): umm.. can I have some coughsweets... and um.. some nicotine gum... and er..
Gary: Look, it's pretty obvious. He just wants a packet of condoms..

And Bottle.. if you have sex with someone who cannot legally consent to having sex that is a crime. It doesn't matter if you yourself cannot legally consent either.

(back to topic of thread...)
Well there is a hickup in minnesota law where it matters what gener you are (for concent)

Actual statutory rape is defined in a way
That lets say both are under age and the male is younger (ets say 14 and 15) the guy can still get charged with statutory rape

The girl cant


If the guy is under age

And the girl is over

Same thing

The way the law is defined only a male is capable of statutory rape (only thing close that a female can be charged with is molestation)

It is kind of silly

interestingly, there IS a well-established correlation between religiosity of parents and child abuse. in fact, according to pretty much all studies on the subject, a child is nearly three times as likely to be abused by heterosexual parents as by homosexual parents.

of course, there are a number of factors to this. physical abuse generally stems from the "spare the rod, spoil the child" school of thought, and from families in which the husband/father sees himself as the king of the castle. abuse is far more likely to occur in such homes, both towards children and towards the wife/mother. additionally, males are by far the most likely to sexually abuse children, so gay homes with two mommies are (obviously) going to be able to provide a measure of safety by sheer virtue of gender. of course, gays in general are far less likely to sexual abuse children than heterosexuals are, but we'll ignore that...:P
That is a bunch of crap. The number of heterosexuals compared to homosexuals is too high to make a conclusive study. The numbers are like 1 and 10 of every person being gay. Saying homosexuals are less likely to do any damn thing would be correct because of the numbers are so few. Where's the source for your study?

And Bottle.. if you have sex with someone who cannot legally consent to having sex that is a crime. It doesn't matter if you yourself cannot legally consent either.

sorry, you need to look up the laws. i interned in a DA's office and we had plenty of parents come in trying to get their kids' boyfriend/girlfriend charged with something to stop the kids from having sex, and we told them the law was clear: if two minors have sex, then technically they are raping each other, but since that is impossible (based on the definition of rape) it cancels out and the two minors have not committed a crime.

sorry, you need to look up the laws. i interned in a DA's office and we had plenty of parents come in trying to get their kids' boyfriend/girlfriend charged with something to stop the kids from having sex, and we told them the law was clear: if two minors have sex, then technically they are raping each other, but since that is impossible (based on the definition of rape) it cancels out and the two minors have not committed a crime.
Well, I can't account for the nuances, loopholes and general stupidities in US law, but in the UK I'm fairly sure I'm accurate here. What's the loophole in the rape law: The rapist must be overage? There was a case here, not so long ago where a bunch of 10-11 year olds raped a 90+ year old woman. How would US law deal with that?

Can't the parents ground their kid to stop them? Or is that an infringement of the kid's civil rights because obviously the parents never know what's best for them? Got to the stage where a child can sue his parents for stopping his/her allowance yet?

How is it that you have this 'inside knowledge' on the ages of the posters?

I suspect you have more to say than you have to back it up.

It was done here on this board by someone else.
The topic was "How Old Is Everyone".

That is a bunch of crap. The number of heterosexuals compared to homosexuals is too high to make a conclusive study. The numbers are like 1 and 10 of every person being gay. Saying homosexuals are less likely to do any damn thing would be correct because of the numbers are so few. Where's the source for your study?
the numbers i refer to are based on ratios, so the fact that there are more religious people than homosexuals doesn't matter. the ratio of abusive homes is higher for religious families than for homosexual families. the ratio of sexual abuse is higher in religious heterosexual homes than in homosexual homes. the raw numbers of over-all households is not relavent. if you are interested in learning about experimental design for such studies i would be quite will to chat about it with you, but i don't want to side-track this discussion with such details...feel free to TM me if you like, or start a fresh thread.

my sources are a variety of journal articles, since i go to the primary literature whenever possible. i suggest searching through JSTOR for more "wet science" and PsychInfo for more psychological data. i also executed one of these studies myself, during my senior year in college; it was sort of a class project, in which we were each responsible for obtaining sampling from a certain segment of the population, looking at family violence and a variety of indicators. our results, taken from a sample of roughly n=2,500, showed a statistically significant positive correlation between self-reported religiosity scores and family abuse history. we did not show any significant correlation between sexuality of parents and abuse history. (we also had a variety of other factors studied, like education level, income, etc, but they aren't relavent here). i don't know if there is any place you can access the full project online, but i will try to track down a copy to upload.

sorry, you need to look up the laws. i interned in a DA's office and we had plenty of parents come in trying to get their kids' boyfriend/girlfriend charged with something to stop the kids from having sex, and we told them the law was clear: if two minors have sex, then technically they are raping each other, but since that is impossible (based on the definition of rape) it cancels out and the two minors have not committed a crime.

WRONG! There have been many news reports that talk about a minor raping another minor and being charged for it. Ever heard of "tried as an adult"?

Well, I can't account for the nuances, loopholes and general stupidities in US law, but in the UK I'm fairly sure I'm accurate here. What's the loophole in the rape law: The rapist must be overage? There was a case here, not so long ago where a bunch of 10-11 year olds raped a 90+ year old woman. How would US law deal with that.

in a case where there was an attack, where the victim comes forward and says that he/she was FORCED to have sex, the age of the attacker does not excuse the behavior. what we were talking about before is cases where two minors "consent" to have sex with one another, cases where the sex is mutual. based on the legal definition, minors cannot actually give consent, so it's a weird situation.


Can't the parents ground their kid to stop them? Or is that an infringement of the kid's civil rights because obviously the parents never know what's best for them? Got to the stage where a child can sue his parents for stopping his/her allowance yet?
parents are fully within their rights to dicipline their children as they see fit and according to whatever rules they believe are appropriate, so long as that dicipline doesn't ammount to abuse. parents are free to make unfair or stupid rules, and the government does not have the right to stop them. the only time a parent can be stopped from diciplining their child is if that dicipline causes direct harm (beatings, starving the kid, etc).

heh heh, just made me think of the 'Men Behaving Badly' (Britcom) sketch in the chemists...
Man at Till (to salesgirl): umm.. can I have some coughsweets... and um.. some nicotine gum... and er..
Gary: Look, it's pretty obvious. He just wants a packet of condoms..


Another pertinant question is, 'why' would the kids be going to have sex anyway? Because it's fun. Why's it fun? Cos that bloke/woman off the telly/in the magazine/etc told me it was. Hmm. If I tell you that putting your arm in a woodchipper is fun would you believe me too? Would you go try it just to see if I was lying or not?

And Bottle.. if you have sex with someone who cannot legally consent to having sex then that is a crime. It doesn't matter if you yourself cannot legally consent either.

(back to topic of thread...) fox-hunting.. no, wait..

The kids are going to have sex anyway because our biology tells us to.

We start having sexual urges whether or not we have been coached on how to deal with them - and those urges will eventually lead us into situations that lead to intercourse.

Or do you think mommy and daddy bunnies read the "where do baby bunnies come from" to all the little bunnies?

No - our biology makes us want sex, and our biology lends itself to the practice of sex.

The ONLY way to subvert biology, is education. If you teach kids about sex, the risks, the truth around it... they are LESS likely to end up having uneducated, exploratory sex - since they will KNOW about the urges they feel - and that gives them SOME capacity to deal with them.

It's nothing to DO with FUN! Cetainly not the first time you find yourself doing it... it's about curiousity, and a 'hunger' you are new to... an 'itch' you haven't yet learned to scratch.

Now, they might have sex AGAIN because it was fun....

But the whole condom/contraception issue - means that they are LESS likely to have the unwanted repurcussions of sexually transmitted disease... or a child that they cannot look after.

WRONG! There have been many news reports that talk about a minor raping another minor and being charged for it.
yes, but you need to read those cases. as i have already said, if a victim comes forward then it can be a rape case (i.e. when a minor says another minor FORCED sex upon them), but it is impossible for two minors to be charged with simultaneously raping one another. sometimes one set of parents will charge the other kid with raping their little angel, but then the "rapist"'s parents can just counter file and the matter gets dropped.

Who's that one person that voted against gay marriages and didn't leave any reason for why you chose that? (you don't need to come out if you don't want to)

There's currently 553 people who voted no.