NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorces

Opponents of gay marriage said the divorces, occurring so soon after the weddings, confirm that gay couples are not equipped for marriage.

This article makes me question if even the most DEVOUT gay couples that ran out and got a marriage license ASAP cannot even withstand a short term marriage, what makes them able to withstand a civil union? This would cause a disaster of paperwork and expenses, transferring those rights every couple of months when ever they found a new partner. The US cannot stand for this.

A ban in Massachusetts needs to be put in place.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorces



This article makes me question if even the most DEVOUT gay couples that ran out and got a marriage license ASAP cannot even withstand a short term marriage, what makes them able to withstand a civil union? This would cause a disaster of paperwork and expenses, transferring those rights every couple of months when ever they found a new partner. The US cannot stand for this.

A ban in Massachusetts needs to be put in place.

hahahahahahahaha!

Yes. that's right! If people get married and then divorced within seven months, *no one* that shares their sexual preference should be allowed to marry.

Guess, after stunts like Ms Spears', all you straight folk'll be willing to give up your marriage rights, yes?

Afterall, it's only logical...


Edit: oh, and to balance your post
With the national divorce rate hovering near 50 percent, gay rights advocates dismissed such arguments.

The second that 50 percent of straight marriages stop ending in divorce is the second you can use divorce rates against homosexual marriage.

You.

Are.

An.

Idiot.

Educate yourself (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html)

hahahahahahahaha!

Yes. that's right! If people get married and then divorced within seven months, *no one* that shares their sexual preference should be allowed to marry.

Guess, after stunts like Ms Spears', all you straight folk'll be willing to give up your marriage rights, yes?

Afterall, it's only logical...

Mrs. Spears didn't lobby for the right to marriage for several years, and spend millions of dollars to get married, to get divorced in two months....

Educate yourself (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html)

If we are to try to keep divorce rates as low as possible, we need to stop these gay couples who arn't equipped for marriage into even a higher percentage!

Mrs. Spears didn't lobby for the right to marriage for several years, and spend millions of dollars to get married, to get divorced in two months....

So what? Once it's been acknowledged as an equal right that people deserve, you can't say 'Oh damn, they aren't using it the way *we* want them to'

If people want to oppose gay marriage based on the fact that homosexuals are allowed to get divorced, they better also stop straight people divorcing, or else stop whining.

As far as I know, there's no law against divorce, so I don't see why that article contained any logical reason for making gay marriage illegal.

If we are to try to keep divorce rates as low as possible, we need to stop these gay couples who arn't equipped for marriage into even a higher percentage!
Black people have a higher rate of divorce too. Are they "equipped for marriage"?

Actually, Asian people have the lowest rate of divorce, period. So let's ban white marriage to further drop the divorce rate?




If you realize why that is stupid, then you see the flaw in your argument.

If we are to try to keep divorce rates as low as possible, we need to stop these gay couples who arn't equipped for marriage into even a higher percentage!

Maybe we should just discourage the morons from marrying, regardless of their sexual preferance?

Maybe we should *educate* people, so they don't get married every damn time they meet someone they think they 'love', after knowing them for two months.

Homosexuals are NOT the problem. Straight people have a divorce rate of almost 50%. Either deal with that FIRST, or find a way to address the problem that doesn't discriminate randomly against homosexuals.

If we are to try to keep divorce rates as low as possible, we need to stop these gay couples who arn't equipped for marriage into even a higher percentage!Wait, wait... let me get this straight. Your idea of fixing the high divorce rate... is to not let more loving couples get married? Are you stupid?

That's is the dumbest idea for fixing a problem I have ever heard. You fix the divorce rates by fixing it with the people who are actually getting married now, not by inhibiting the rights of others.

So what? Once it's been acknowledged as an equal right that people deserve, you can't say 'Oh damn, they aren't using it the way *we* want them to'

If people want to oppose gay marriage based on the fact that homosexuals are allowed to get divorced, they better also stop straight people divorcing, or else stop whining.

As far as I know, there's no law against divorce, so I don't see why that article contained any logical reason for making gay marriage illegal.

What's going on in Mass. is a great example of a test for the rest of the nation. Its a great test to see if it will have a positive or negative effect on the nation. Right now it is failing, the results are showing that gay couples don't have the proper tools or know how to hold a marriage together.

It's not your fault though, nature didn't give you these tools, so don't feel bad. You just need to learn you can't defy nature and I'm hoping everyone learns that gay couples just can't handle marriage or civil unions for that matter. It's just too much for them.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorces



This article makes me question if even the most DEVOUT gay couples that ran out and got a marriage license ASAP cannot even withstand a short term marriage, what makes them able to withstand a civil union? This would cause a disaster of paperwork and expenses, transferring those rights every couple of months when ever they found a new partner. The US cannot stand for this.

A ban in Massachusetts needs to be put in place.

This article tells you that it is hypocritical to use gay divorce as a reason to ban gay marriage. Geeze. I had an aunt who was married to her second husband for three days, her third for eight years and then her fourth for six months. Should we ban her from getting married? Or maybe everyone in her family because obviously we aren't equipped to be married.

Oh wait, but that would mean my parents who just celebrated their 32nd anniversay should have their marriage annulled.

And the article only mentioned three or four divorces specifically and it doesn't seem to lead me to believe that there are just hundreds and hundreds more. Yet it pointed out that there were thousands of gay marriages. That still puts the gay divorce rate WAY below the heterosexual divorce rate.

You really need some critical thinking skills.

What's going on in Mass. is a great example of a test for the rest of the nation. Its a great test to see if it will have a positive or negative effect on the nation. Right now it is failing, the results are showing that gay couples don't have the proper tools or know how to hold a marriage together.

It's not your fault though, nature didn't give you these tools, so don't feel bad. You just need to learn you can't defy nature and I'm hoping everyone learns that gay couples just can't handle marriage or civil unions for that matter. It's just too much for them.


It's not failing! Three or four or even 100 gay divorces don't make gay marriage a failure.

IF you want a failure, let's look at the 50% divorce rates for heteros.

Homosexuals are NOT the problem. Straight people have a divorce rate of almost 50%. Either deal with that FIRST, or find a way to address the problem that doesn't discriminate randomly against homosexuals.

Maybe we could if gay couples didn't keep tying up millions of tax payers dollars in gay marriage law suits and what not!

We have problems we have to clear up first, lets fix those and throw these ones away, where they go.

What's going on in Mass. is a great example of a test for the rest of the nation. Its a great test to see if it will have a positive or negative effect on the nation. Right now it is failing, the results are showing that gay couples don't have the proper tools or know how to hold a marriage together.

It's not your fault though, nature didn't give you these tools, so don't feel bad. You just need to learn you can't defy nature and I'm hoping everyone learns that gay couples just can't handle marriage or civil unions for that matter. It's just too much for them.

I, for the record, am heterosexual.

And, apparently, marriage is too much for 50% of heterosexuals. Nature mustn't haven't given straight people the tools needed for marriage either. Hence we should take marriage rights away from them too.

Just admit it; you are either close-minded, or arguing a completely ridiculous point.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorces



This article makes me question if even the most DEVOUT gay couples that ran out and got a marriage license ASAP cannot even withstand a short term marriage, what makes them able to withstand a civil union? This would cause a disaster of paperwork and expenses, transferring those rights every couple of months when ever they found a new partner. The US cannot stand for this.

A ban in Massachusetts needs to be put in place.

Makes as much sense as those people trying to get people to vote Bush because Kerry owned so many houses, and, hence would therefore require several teams of secret service agents after his presidency to guard them.

Heck, if you want to prevent a disaster of paperwork and expenses you'd just ban divorce. What's wrong with that?

Preventing gays from marrying will be like stopping a drop into an ocean. Preventing straight people from marrying will far outstrip this. Basically, if you are really basing your argument on the sole fact that it will be costly to have gays get married, then a much better idea would be to make divorces much harder to obtain for straight persons (or marriages harder). That will have a much larger impact than not allowing gays to marry.

I think this is not a question of deserving anything. Its a question of kindness. If people could grasp the concept of allowing people the freedoms to marry who they want, say what they want, believe what they want, we would be a happier nation.
And besides, this is something new. I can assure that people quitting something when it is new is much more common before more stable relationships fall into place. Consider video games for example, it looks appealing, its new, you buy it, you hate it, you throw it away. Its common. As the game advances in age, critiques and reviews come out you and better understand the game before playing. Thus rates of people quitting, or divorcing in this case, fall.
Respect your fellow human, no matter who they are. Its called Kindness. Gasp.

Maybe we could if gay couples didn't keep tying up millions of tax payers dollars in gay marriage law suits and what not!

We have problems we have to clear up first, lets fix those and throw these ones away, where they go.

Heterosexuals are wasting a hell of a lot more of your tax money. Probably to a factor of ten or twenty.

Deal. With. The. Straight. Divorce. Rate. First.

Because otherwise you just look homophobic. And that doesn't help your point at all.

What's going on in Mass. is a great example of a test for the rest of the nation. Its a great test to see if it will have a positive or negative effect on the nation. Right now it is failing, the results are showing that gay couples don't have the proper tools or know how to hold a marriage together.

It's not your fault though, nature didn't give you these tools, so don't feel bad. You just need to learn you can't defy nature and I'm hoping everyone learns that gay couples just can't handle marriage or civil unions for that matter. It's just too much for them.Hey, idiot. You need a thing called proof to back up statements like that.

Also, it's not a REAL test unless people are actually supporting it and letting it happen. Last I checked, there are still lawsuits and court orders flying all over Mass.

It should be noted that straight couples are most responsible for child abuse, spousal abuse, and domestic disturbances. Granted, there's more of them, but statistically speaking.

Being gay isn't defying nature! :headbang: How could something that has been going on for thousands of years be defying nature? Seriously? Do you honestly believe a practice that has been around since Christ was supposedly on the earth is something that is AGAINST nature? If so, you're a freaking moron.

By the way, black furred squirrels were recently introduced into my neighborhood. I think it's a great example for the rest of the nation. They don't seem to be doing to well though. Those little bastards get what they deserve though, as they're just defying nature, as everyone knows squirrels are supposed to be reddish brown.

It's not failing! Three or four or even 100 gay divorces don't make gay marriage a failure.

IF you want a failure, let's look at the 50% divorce rates for heteros.

It is failing, IF THESE ARE THE MOST DEVOUT GAY COUPLES, these are the ones that spent lots of money and lots of time trying to get this to pass, you took the grunt of the hardship to gain this right and they are throwing it away. These are the people WHO begged for it.

If such a high percentage of the people who begged for gay marriage are getting divorced much faster and at a higher percentage.

The 50% is over 15 YEARS, anyone who gets divorced in 15 YEARS goes under this category... Look how many gay marriage divorces we have under SEVEN MONTHS...

Because otherwise you just look homophobic. And that doesn't help your point at all.

The issue here is not that s/he looks homophobic, but rather that s/he *IS* homophobic.

What's going on in Mass. is a great example of a test for the rest of the nation. Its a great test to see if it will have a positive or negative effect on the nation. Right now it is failing, the results are showing that gay couples don't have the proper tools or know how to hold a marriage together.

It's not your fault though, nature didn't give you these tools, so don't feel bad. You just need to learn you can't defy nature and I'm hoping everyone learns that gay couples just can't handle marriage or civil unions for that matter. It's just too much for them.
On what basis have you concluded that this is "failing"? That article didn't contain any statistics about the divorce rate for gay couples, all it said was that a few couples have divorced after several months of marriage. This happens to some heterosexual couples too, how about we just scrap marriage altogether?

It is failing, IF THESE ARE THE MOST DEVOUT GAY COUPLES, these are the ones that spent lots of money and lots of time trying to get this to pass, you took the grunt of the hardship to gain this right and they are throwing it away. These are the people WHO begged for it.

If such a high percentage of the people who begged for gay marriage are getting divorced much faster and at a higher percentage.

The 50% is over 15 YEARS, anyone who gets divorced in 15 YEARS goes under this category... Look how many gay marriage divorces we have under SEVEN MONTHS...Just because they were financially able and had time to campaign for a right they thought they deserved does not mean they represent the entire gay population of the country. Look at fucking Canada. Look at European countries. They're allowing gays to marry. There aren't any problems. There isn't some soaring divorce rate.

The only problem is the fact that you're homophobic, and then try to use fake logic to back up your opinions.

It is failing, IF THESE ARE THE MOST DEVOUT GAY COUPLES, these are the ones that spent lots of money and lots of time trying to get this to pass, you took the grunt of the hardship to gain this right and they are throwing it away. These are the people WHO begged for it.

Actually these may not be the people who fought so hard for it. THese may be the people who started pulling a Britney and going for it because they could.


If such a high percentage of the people who begged for gay marriage are getting divorced much faster and at a higher percentage.

No where in the article did it say it was a high percentage, nor was it implied in the least. In fact, as I said before, it only made it look like 0.3% or so. That's 49.7% less than heterosexuals.


The 50% is over 15 YEARS, anyone who gets divorced in 15 YEARS goes under this category... Look how many gay marriage divorces we have under SEVEN MONTHS...

Gee really, how many gay divorces do we have? Three? Ten? That's still far less a percentage than straight people would have in seven months.

What's going on in Mass. is a great example of a test for the rest of the nation. Its a great test to see if it will have a positive or negative effect on the nation. Right now it is failing, the results are showing that gay couples don't have the proper tools or know how to hold a marriage together.

It's not your fault though, nature didn't give you these tools, so don't feel bad. You just need to learn you can't defy nature and I'm hoping everyone learns that gay couples just can't handle marriage or civil unions for that matter. It's just too much for them.

So then, if its too much for them, does this mean that you are saying they don't have the same capabilities that straight people do? At risk of repeating half the people on the board, HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT FROM STRAIGHT PEOPLE WITH THE SAME PROBLEM? I mean, hell, it's the high school "oohhhhh I love Billy soooo much mentality that gets people into trouble, and believe me half of my friends went through that. It's when people take it OUT of high school that divorce becomes a problem. So, with that in mind please explain to me again why the distinction is even possible?

Hey, idiot. You need a thing called proof to back up statements like that.


It should be noted that straight couples are most responsible for child abuse, spousal abuse, and domestic disturbances. Granted, there's more of them, but statistically speaking.


You contradict yourself, first you talk about proof, then when you make a statement you provide no proof.

Read the news article. In this news article, of the hardcore gay couples that ran out and got married right away, there is already cases of abuse listed as reasons for divorce ( don't count the other ones happening right now! )! Gay people are just as or more abusive then straight, statisitically speaking.

Chances are that you have no idea how hard it is to be gay and what you have to go through. Everyone pointing and making fun of you. It can destrpy a persons life. It doesnt matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual, theres always going to be those that get married for the wrong reasons and get divorced later.

Data from divorcepeers.com:

Age at marriage for those who divorce in the United States

--------------------------------------------------
Age Women Men
--------------------------------------------------
Under 20 years old 27.6% 11.7%
20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8%
25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3%
30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6%
35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5%

--------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, the probability of remarriage among divorced women was 54 percent in 5 years--58 percent for white women, 44 percent for Hispanic women, and 32 percent for black women. However, there was also a strong probability that 2nd marriages will end in separation or divorce (23 percent after 5 years and 39 percent after 10 years).<<<Based on CDC stats

So woman age 20 to 24 should not be allowed to marry and white woman should not be allowed to remarry as both these groups will raise the divorce rates... Hetro, Homo, whatever-o the government needs to keep its noise out of my/our personal business.

~Nuff Said

You contradict yourself, first you talk about proof, then when you make a statement you provide no proof.

Read the news article. In this news article, of the hardcore gay couples that ran out and got married right away, there is already cases of abuse listed as reasons for divorce ( don't count the other ones happening right now! )! Gay people are just as or more abusive then straight, statisitically speaking.

Dude, ONE case, can't be used as a blanket statement for a whole group, it neither makes sense, nor is mathematically valid

The issue here is not that s/he looks homophobic, but rather that s/he *IS* homophobic.

Add me to that list then.

Anything is better I guess, than embracing perversion as normal.

According to 66% of the state of Ohio, the only state I've lived in for more than three years, no.


On the OP.
So... because about half of Straight marraiges eventually end in divorce, and percentage of gay marraiges not even in the same order of magnitude have ended in divorce, we need to ban the side currently lowering the statistic in order to lower it?

When you get to Highschool, they teach this thing called Algebra. Come back when you understand how to use it.


Of course, right now a full generation has not passed. Therefore there is no ground for comparison yet. To actually get useful data, you need to TEST the hypothesis, not just extrapolate one anecdote.

This, known as the Scientific Method, should have been drilled into your brain in fourth grade. You seem a bit brighter than that, so... You're trying to be willfully ignorant, right? Or were you home schooled?

Look at fucking Canada. Look at European countries. They're allowing gays to marry. There aren't any problems.

There arn't any problems with Canada or European countries, eh??

Don't even try to promote Canada or France over the US.

You contradict yourself, first you talk about proof, then when you make a statement you provide no proof.

Read the news article. In this news article, of the hardcore gay couples that ran out and got married right away, there is already cases of abuse listed as reasons for divorce ( don't count the other ones happening right now! )! Gay people are just as or more abusive then straight, statisitically speaking.

Please note, hundreds, if not a thousand or so couples have been married in Mass. Your article said that a few gay couples have been divorced. A few implies 2-20. Please, if your brain can handle it, do the math. The percentage is .3 or so. Straight marriage is 50%. There is no cause for alarm. Go look at see how many straight marraiges get divorced within 7 months, and I bet you'll see it's a bigger percentage than .3%.

You've got nothing backing you up except for the fact that you're afraid of and hate gay people. Sit down, learn to accept them, and do the world a favor and shut up.

You contradict yourself, first you talk about proof, then when you make a statement you provide no proof.

Read the news article. In this news article, of the hardcore gay couples that ran out and got married right away, there is already cases of abuse listed as reasons for divorce ( don't count the other ones happening right now! )! Gay people are just as or more abusive then straight, statisitically speaking. The article talks about TWO divorces. Where is the information to back up your claim that the divorce rate for gays is higher than for heterosexuals? Where are these "statistics" that demonstrate that gay people are more abusive than straight people?

Add me to that list then.

Anything is better I guess, than embracing perversion as normal.

Termy we've been through this before. It's not a perversion, it IS natural by the fact that it occurs in the natural world, and yes, you are a homophobe in pretty much every sense of the word.

As an aside, I'm glad you are back--I need my entertainment.

Add me to that list then.

Anything is better I guess, than embracing perversion as normal.

... or accepting that your personal views have no place in law, hmm? I notice homophobes hate that also.

Add me to that list then.

Anything is better I guess, than embracing perversion as normal.Explain why it's perverted, and leave the 'god' references at home.

Add me to that list then.

Anything is better I guess, than embracing perversion as normal.

I wonder if there are any actual gay people on these fora. Statistically, it's more than likely.

I wonder how they feel about slurs like this.

There arn't any problems with Canada or European countries, eh??

Don't even try to promote Canada or France over the US.

S/he was referring to the fact that Canada and several Scandanavian nations (those are in Northern Europe) have gay marriage--and incidentally some of the lowerst divorce rates in the world, rates which they did not have prior to the legalization of gay marriage.

There arn't any problems with Canada or European countries, eh??

Don't even try to promote Canada or France over the US.It's a shame you're not even making sense anymore. I don't even know where you pulled France from. I used European countries as a blanket statement, as some have passed laws, and others haven't.

It isn't about who is better or not. It's about the fact they're running the same system you're whining about here, and it's working.

I wonder if there are any actual gay people on these fora. Statistically, it's more than likely.

I wonder how they feel about slurs like this.

I'm gay.

I've learned to ignore most of what term says. It's usually worthless for anything but amusement.

Occasionally he does say something good, but then a monkey in front of a keyboard long enough will eventually type out a Shakespearean sonnet.

S/he was referring to the fact that Canada and several Scandanavian nations (those are in Northern Europe) have gay marriage--and incidentally some of the lowerst divorce rates in the world, rates which they did not have prior to the legalization of gay marriage.He, and thank you for the clarification. I didn't remember which countries had legalized, so I used a vague statement.

I wonder if there are any actual gay people on these fora. Statistically, it's more than likely.

I wonder how they feel about slurs like this.Yeah, there's quite a few.

I'm gay.

And you know what, when you've faced this kinda crap your whole life, you have no choice but to get used to it. And the idea that I should have to get used to it is what irritates me. The entire idea of homophobia is so ridiculous, when people can watch movies where people are horrifically killed or maimed without blinking an eye, but they blanch and make disgusted faces when two guys kiss on screen. WTF is wrong with this world?

Massachusetts, overall, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

The highest divorces are in Republican states.

Make of it what you will.

Please note, hundreds, if not a thousand or so couples have been married in Mass. Your article said that a few gay couples have been divorced. A few implies 2-20. Please, if your brain can handle it, do the math. The percentage is .3 or so. Straight marriage is 50%. There is no cause for alarm. Go look at see how many straight marraiges get divorced within 7 months, and I bet you'll see it's a bigger percentage than .3%.

You've got nothing backing you up except for the fact that you're afraid of and hate gay people. Sit down, learn to accept them, and do the world a favor and shut up.

Lets be realistic, well use some of your numbers. A thousand couples have been married ( estimate ). So far over the course of seven months 20 couples have been married. By the end of the 15 years that the statistic for 50% of straight marriage is taken ( which is really only 43% if you look at the site ), 51.4 percent of the gay couples will be divorced, an 8.4 percent higher number. This number is also of the HARD CORE gay couples who spent time and money begging for this right, think of all the other couples, even a higher rate 75-80%

To the people stating their gay.

That's awesome, That's cool. Do what you like. Just don't destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Lets be realistic, well use some of your numbers. A thousand couples have been married ( estimate ). So far over the course of seven months 20 couples have been married. By the end of the 15 years that the statistic for 50% of straight marriage is taken ( which is really only 43% if you look at the site ), 51.4 percent of the gay couples will be divorced, an 8.4 percent higher number. This number is also of the HARD CORE gay couples who spent time and money begging for this right, think of all the other couples, even a higher rate 75-80%

<Crappy attempt at statistics deleted because someone else handled it better than I could>

And again, we don't know that these are the hardcore gay couples. The article didn't say that. These could easily be gay couples married on a whim.

There arn't any problems with Canada or European countries, eh??

Don't even try to promote Canada or France over the US.
Bringing up France is an act of desperation by delusional conservatives.

To the people stating their gay.

That's awesome, That's cool. Do what you like. Just don't destroy the sanctity of marriage.

How exactly would we destroy the sanctity of marriage? I've always been curious about exactly how one would do that. Because of course its on my "gay agenda" right undernearth forcing everyone to listen to Streisand and Garland soundtracks. :eyerolls:

Lets be realistic, well use some of your numbers. A thousand couples have been married ( estimate ). So far over the course of seven months 20 couples have been married. By the end of the 15 years that the statistic for 50% of straight marriage is taken ( which is really only 43% if you look at the site ), 51.4 percent of the gay couples will be divorced, an 8.4 percent higher number. This number is also of the HARD CORE gay couples who spent time and money begging for this right, think of all the other couples, even a higher rate 75-80%That's only if you take the absolute max. Let's say if you take something more reasonable, like 7-9 or so, which is a nice median. The number comes up around 18%, which is much lower. You can't look at things this early and use math to project things accurately. It's not going to work, as you don't have a big enough test group.

Also, just because someone campaigned for the right to get married does not make them "HARD CORE". It makes them political activists. It doesn't necessarily mean they're the most loving, and adoring partners.

God, I can't believe you even have the nerve to call the people who campaigned for the right to marry as HARDCORE gay couples. That's so freaking ridiculous. Your idiocy boggles the mind! Garhgsdjfhasd!

Massachusetts, overall, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

The highest divorces are in Republican states.

Make of it what you will.


I read that article too. It really was very interesting how red states are the most immoral while blue states are more moral and more educated. They also use less federal money.

To the people stating their gay.

That's awesome, That's cool. Do what you like. Just don't destroy the sanctity of marriage.I can't destroy something that doesn't exist. Heterosexuals destroyed that a long time ago. Does the 'sanctity' of marriage include allowing Britney Spears to get drunk, and then divorced two hours later? Does it include reality TV shows called 'Who wants to marry a millionare", where a millionare holds a beauty pageant and then marries the girl he likes best right on stage? You think THAT is the sanctity of marriage? You're ridiculous. Take a real look at the world.

Hahahahahahaha, idiot.

What is this whole sanctity of marriage thing anyway? Marriage existed long before Christianity hijacked it. All marriage does is ensure legitimacy of children.
Oh and yeah, homosexuality was around long before Christianity too.

So just because Christianity says something is or isn't the way, that is as is it is and should be?

Didn't your forefathers say something about separation of state and religion...you know, the ones that were quite religious themselves...

OK, either this guy is the biggest idiot I have ever heard OR he's pulling a moderately decent hoax. I'm hoping for the second of the two, because he does such a good job sounding like a moron.

Well, just posting a news article...

Doesn't really matter anyway since the gay marriage constitutional ban will pass the second time around...

11 states have already banned it, yours is next.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorces



This article makes me question if even the most DEVOUT gay couples that ran out and got a marriage license ASAP cannot even withstand a short term marriage, what makes them able to withstand a civil union? This would cause a disaster of paperwork and expenses, transferring those rights every couple of months when ever they found a new partner. The US cannot stand for this.

A ban in Massachusetts needs to be put in place.


After you kill all the gay people, do you plan on putting the bodies in mass graves, or burning them in ovens?

Well, just posting a news article...

Doesn't really matter anyway since the gay marriage constitutional ban will pass the second time around...

11 states have already banned it, yours is next.

If worst comes to worst, a constitutional amendment will last for fifteen years and then it will go the way of prohibition. Regardless of what the Christian right thinks, America is never going to stand for creating second class citizens in its consitution for too long.

And before the amendment can be passed, I think we will see rather a few more court decisions in favor of actual equality and people will realise "gee, the sky hasn't fallen like we thought it would. . . .maybe the world is really round too!"

So many arguments to cut to shreds, so little memory to remember them all. Well I'll start with the most patriotic and fascist statement, that you shouldn't compare Canada, France and the US. What, are you from Southpark? France and Canada by themselves have more freedom than the USA ever had. Funnily, because a large part of Europe allows gay marriage they also have much lower divorce rates than the USA. I think this would indicate non-US citizens are much more integer about marriage and mature enough to handle it, gay or otherwise.

Then the 'sanctity of marriage'. Come on, this so-called sanctity is no more divine than Stonehenge or the Klux-Klux Klan. Animals never marry, many don't even have a partner for life. We humans can maintain such a relationship, but that doesn't mean our bondings are holy. What, you mean to say swans are holy as well? Big, white feathered hulks that can beat you senseless if they consider you a threat? Marriage is a ritual known all over the world by Christians, Muslims, Budhists, Pagans and all other cultures and religions. Seings as how all of these major groups claim the other is not the one true faith, why should the marriages of said group be holy? After all, the Koran says it's so, so it's true right? <--Sarcasm

If you think gay divorce harms the economy somehow, then why did no one ever halt the straight divorces? I recon those would squander millions of taxpayers money, yet I hear no one complaining about that. The only measure that should be put in place is to make all marriages more endurable. Saves tax money, keeps people in harmony with eachother and hopefully puts United back in USA.

So many arguments to cut to shreds, so little memory to remember them all. Well I'll start with the most patriotic and fascist statement, that you shouldn't compare Canada, France and the US. What, are you from Southpark? France and Canada by themselves have more freedom than the USA ever had. Funnily, because a large part of Europe allows gay marriage they also have much lower divorce rates than the USA. I think this would indicate non-US citizens are much more integer about marriage and mature enough to handle it, gay or otherwise.

Then the 'sanctity of marriage'. Come on, this so-called sanctity is no more divine than Stonehenge or the Klux-Klux Klan. Animals never marry, many don't even have a partner for life. We humans can maintain such a relationship, but that doesn't mean our bondings are holy. What, you mean to say swans are holy as well? Big, white feathered hulks that can beat you senseless if they consider you a threat? Marriage is a ritual known all over the world by Christians, Muslims, Budhists, Pagans and all other cultures and religions. Seings as how all of these major groups claim the other is not the one true faith, why should the marriages of said group be holy? After all, the Koran says it's so, so it's true right? <--Sarcasm

If you think gay divorce harms the economy somehow, then why did no one ever halt the straight divorces? I recon those would squander millions of taxpayers money, yet I hear no one complaining about that. The only measure that should be put in place is to make all marriages more endurable. Saves tax money, keeps people in harmony with eachother and hopefully puts United back in USA.

A-freakin-men to that.
When I first saw this 30 minutes ago (I'm at work at the mo so it takes a while to trawl through) I kinda hoped it was a joke as most people on this forum seemed pretty cool from what little of it I've seen. Since the initial troll style rant at gays I've seen that a lot of people here are level headed, and capable of logical thinking which kinda makes up for the idiotic ramblings of captain homophobe.
I myself am not gay but have gay friends who moan no end about gay marriage etc. so I feel quite strongly about it (if only to shut them up). In essence, other than who they love, whats the difference between a gay person and a straight person? I don't really see a difference.. so why the difference on who can be married?

Well, just posting a news article...

Doesn't really matter anyway since the gay marriage constitutional ban will pass the second time around...

11 states have already banned it, yours is next.

Was inerracial marrige banned? Nope.

Give it time, and you're arguments will be seen by the majority as bigoted and foolish-which is just what they are. You are a fool, and a sad, sad little man who's spending his energy trying to harm others instead of making the world a better place. A waste of breath.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorces



This article makes me question if even the most DEVOUT gay couples that ran out and got a marriage license ASAP cannot even withstand a short term marriage, what makes them able to withstand a civil union? This would cause a disaster of paperwork and expenses, transferring those rights every couple of months when ever they found a new partner. The US cannot stand for this.

that's the problem, though: it WASN'T just the most devout gay couples that ran out and got married. think about what things were like the day after Prohibition ended; anybody and everybody was getting drunk, even people who didn't really like drinking. when you have been denied a right for so very long, and suddenly you are given it back, and when there is the serious possibility that it will be taken away again in the near future, you usually leap at the chance to experience it.

it is natural for many of the gay couples who rushed into marriage to be realizing they weren't interested in their own marriage so much as they were interested in being able to be married. after gay marriage has been around for a little while this will settle down, just as history has shown to be the case for all such instances of ended prohibition. personally, i think gay divorces will be rarer than heterosexual ones, since gay couples usually must endure more together just to be a couple in the first place, and therefore their relationships are already tested to a point beyond that of the average heterosexual couple.

I wonder if there are any actual gay people on these fora. Statistically, it's more than likely.

I wonder how they feel about slurs like this.
Yo.

To answer your question- Well, it's less offensive than my roomate in college. I just pity the folk.


By the end of the 15 years that the statistic for 50% of straight marriage is taken ( which is really only 43% if you look at the site ),

which has since been revised downward to roughly 43% by the National Center for Health Statistics but was moved back up to around 50% by the Census Bureau in 2002

Dude, do you even read this stuff?

51.4 percent of the gay couples will be divorced,
I reiterate- You have no actual data to back up your claim. You are making a hypothesis and citing it as an proof that your hypothesis is correct.

This number is also of the HARD CORE gay couples who spent time and money begging for this right, think of all the other couples, even a higher rate 75-80%
There is also no data whatsoever to back this up, meaning it falls directly under "pulled out of my ass."

Mrs. Spears didn't lobby for the right to marriage for several years, and spend millions of dollars to get married, to get divorced in two months....
Gee--maybe that's because she didn't fucking have to. Good lord--you actually count as a sentient being, don't you?

Might I add that, after reading an article in Time (or was it Newsweek?) showing where in the U.S. the highest divorce rates were. The highest were in southern states, which, unless I am utterly mistaken, voted primarily for Bush, and, unless I am further mistaken, does not support gay marriage and he (Bush) reluctantly supports civil unions. Interesting food for thought.

You.

Are.

An.

Idiot.

Hey, idiot.

<snip>

If so, you're a freaking moron.
Cool down a bit.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Well, just posting a news article...

Doesn't really matter anyway since the gay marriage constitutional ban will pass the second time around...

11 states have already banned it, yours is next.

Not mine.

Frankly, you can go blow it out your ass. If you don't want those icky gays getting married, go ahead and ban it in your own backwards state, but keep your opinions of my state to your goddamn self. I'm so sick of people ripping Massachusetts because we decided we were done being intolerant bigots and gave gay people the right to wed.

This extremely straight Californian is proud to be part of the same country as Mass., and their non-bigoted majority.

On divorce rates, of course red states have higher ones, they're mostly Christian.

Compare Christian divorce rates to Atheist/Agnostic divorce rates (Last I checked we tied with Orthodox Catholics as the lowest rate).

So much for sanctity.

This extremely straight Californian is proud to be part of the same country as Mass., and their non-bigoted majority.

On divorce rates, of course red states have higher ones, they're mostly Christian.

Compare Christian divorce rates to Atheist/Agnostic divorce rates (Last I checked we tied with Orthodox Catholics as the lowest rate).

So much for sanctity.
What's even more amazing about that bolded part is that a large part of the reason for the low divorce rate among Orthodox Catholics (as well as Jehovah's Witnesses) is the huge institutional bias against it. Those churches make it nearly impossible to get a divorce without leaving the church, so there's an even greater likelihood that members of those churches will stay in bad marriages rather than leave the larger community. The fact that atheists and agnostics stay together at the same rate without that external pressure speaks loads about the quality of their relationships in general.

Might I add that, after reading an article in Time (or was it Newsweek?) showing where in the U.S. the highest divorce rates were. The highest were in southern states, which, unless I am utterly mistaken, voted primarily for Bush, and, unless I am further mistaken, does not support gay marriage and he (Bush) reluctantly supports civil unions. Interesting food for thought.

There was a really good article posted online about this. Of the ten states with highest divorce rates, all ten were Red states. Of the ten with the lowest divorce rates (MA included) 8 were blue states. Further, most of those were states with the HIGHEST marriage rates. So blue states are getting married more and staying married more. Kind of makes you wonder why red states are so keen to force the "morality" they aren't living off on others.

This extremely straight Californian is proud to be part of the same country as Mass., and their non-bigoted majority.

On divorce rates, of course red states have higher ones, they're mostly Christian.

Compare Christian divorce rates to Atheist/Agnostic divorce rates (Last I checked we tied with Orthodox Catholics as the lowest rate).

So much for sanctity.

I agree, but can't resist pointing out that Orthodox Catholics are Christians as well . . .

There was a really good article posted online about this. Of the ten states with highest divorce rates, all ten were Red states. Of the ten with the lowest divorce rates (MA included) 8 were blue states. Further, most of those were states with the HIGHEST marriage rates. So blue states are getting married more and staying married more. Kind of makes you wonder why red states are so keen to force the "morality" they aren't living off on others.
Because they're a bunch of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, priggish hypocrites?

I agree, but can't resist pointing out that Orthodox Catholics are Christians as well . . .
A very small subset, however.

I say let gay couples have civil unions; it's not actually marraige but it gives them the same legal status, that way everyone is happy.

People against it: No gay marraige so the sacntity is protected

Peope for it: gays get legal equality

Everyone else: nobody has to listen to this stupid debate anymore!

Mrs. Spears didn't lobby for the right to marriage for several years, and spend millions of dollars to get married, to get divorced in two months....
neither did every single gay couple.

If we are to try to keep divorce rates as low as possible, we need to stop these gay couples who arn't equipped for marriage into even a higher percentage!
then stop the heterosexuals who aren't equipped for marriage from getting married. when you consider that 10% of the population is gay vs 90% straight. who's going to have a bigger impact on divorce rates?

Mrs. Spears didn't lobby for the right to marriage for several years, and spend millions of dollars to get married, to get divorced in two months....
You're right. She took a right her ancestors have had for hundreds of years and defiled it.
Which is so much better.

And saying "they're not equipped" is a horrible pun, if you meant it that way. And if you didn't notice, you shouldn't be talking.

You're right. She took a right her ancestors have had for hundreds of years and defiled it.
Which is so much better.
So what exactly is the point you're trying to make? That because Britney Spears (among millions of others every year) made a shitty decision about marriage that that somehow justifies discrimination against same-sex couples, many of whom will take the opportunity far more seriously?

Maybe we could if gay couples didn't keep tying up millions of tax payers dollars in gay marriage law suits and what not!

We have problems we have to clear up first, lets fix those and throw these ones away, where they go.
or perhaps people shouldn't waste tax payer money fighting gay marriage and just allow some equal rights?

Yeah, there's quite a few.

I'm gay.

And you know what, when you've faced this kinda crap your whole life, you have no choice but to get used to it. And the idea that I should have to get used to it is what irritates me. The entire idea of homophobia is so ridiculous, when people can watch movies where people are horrifically killed or maimed without blinking an eye, but they blanch and make disgusted faces when two guys kiss on screen. WTF is wrong with this world?

I'm not homosexual, so I don't have a true understanding of where you are coming from. But I am agnostic/leaning atheist, so I deal with the same people.

What I really find irritating about them is that they are the first to scream protests about things being forced on them, yet they are the first to tell someone that their beliefs/lifestyles are wrong and should not be respected by the government or anyone else for that matter.

There arn't any problems with Canada or European countries, eh??

Don't even try to promote Canada or France over the US.
why not?

according to the page linked earlier, canada's divorce rate is around 25%, roughly half of the american divorce rate.

furthremore, unlike your country, we don't have the largest gap between teh rich and the poor...

dont' sit there trying to tell me that the u.s. is better.

*note: i'm not trying to say that canada or france is better than the u.s. either. but the tone of the poster's post was that being compared to canada or france was the worst way to insult america... as though they're so much better...*

That's awesome, That's cool. Do what you like. Just don't destroy the sanctity of marriage.
what sanctity of marriage.

aside from the fact that we're discussing the legal aspects of marriage...

and aside from the fact that the divorce rate in your country is 50%.

and aside from the fact that not everyone who wants to get married wants to do so in a religious manner...

what sanctity?

Well, just posting a news article...

Doesn't really matter anyway since the gay marriage constitutional ban will pass the second time around...

11 states have already banned it, yours is next.

Actually, my country just passed legislation this week in favour of civil unions. By quite a comfortable margin too 65 - 55 on a conscience vote.

Mrs. Spears didn't lobby for the right to marriage for several years
She didn't need to.

You are such desparate fool.

Face it, no matter how much you think gay marriage is "icky!", it's going to happen. There's nothing you fascists can do about it.

What's going on in Mass. is a great example of a test for the rest of the nation. Its a great test to see if it will have a positive or negative effect on the nation. Right now it is failing, the results are showing that gay couples don't have the proper tools or know how to hold a marriage together.
Wrong, yet again. The majority of gay marriages are not failing.

Because they're a bunch of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, priggish hypocrites?

Not all of us southerners are :)

I say let gay couples have civil unions; it's not actually marraige but it gives them the same legal status, that way everyone is happy.

People against it: No gay marraige so the sacntity is protected

Peope for it: gays get legal equality

Everyone else: nobody has to listen to this stupid debate anymore!

That's fine if in the eyes of the government EVERYONE gets civil unions. If you want to leave marriage to religious groups, fine. But everyone has to have the same title wth the government. Separate is not equal and we are not going to compromise on equality.

Maybe we could if gay couples didn't keep tying up millions of tax payers dollars in gay marriage law suits and what not!

Hey, why not just ban divorce??

:rolleyes:

I strongly suggest that you stop arguing your fundamentally ridiculous point.

So what exactly is the point you're trying to make? That because Britney Spears (among millions of others every year) made a shitty decision about marriage that that somehow justifies discrimination against same-sex couples, many of whom will take the opportunity far more seriously?

Actually I think you will find the person who made the Britney comment yu were referrign to you agrees with you. You have to read the whole chain of that discussion to get it. Trust me on this one :)

A gay marriage is a marriage that includes happy people. When two homosexuals live together, it is no big deal. It is not a happy marriage. It is just two people of that sexual persuasion who live together.

As for some sort of government-sanctioned civil union of homosexuals, that is no big deal either. The church cannot sanction it, because God sees such sexual behavior as an abomination. The church and state, however, should remain separate in the United States of America.

You do know that you can just go to any city hall and request a marriage license, simply for legal purposes, with no church or religion of any kind involved.

Five words:
SEPARATION
OF
CHURCH
AND
STATE.

To the people stating their gay.

That's awesome, That's cool. Do what you like. Just don't destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Sanctity of marriage?

Okay, then don't call it marriage, if you must.

But really, why is letting homosexuals have state-sanctioned unions such a 'wrong' thing?

Lemme guess, you're Xtian. Or some religion or other that forbids homosexuality.

It is failing, IF THESE ARE THE MOST DEVOUT GAY COUPLES, these are the ones that spent lots of money and lots of time trying to get this to pass, you took the grunt of the hardship to gain this right and they are throwing it away. These are the people WHO begged for it.

If such a high percentage of the people who begged for gay marriage are getting divorced much faster and at a higher percentage.

The 50% is over 15 YEARS, anyone who gets divorced in 15 YEARS goes under this category... Look how many gay marriage divorces we have under SEVEN MONTHS...
Tell me what exactly is the gay divorce rate for the first seven months?

How do you know that the couples in the article are the most devout? It sounds like they aren't.

You should say what you wanted to say. Admit it. You just want to say, "I hate fags!"

Don't even try to promote Canada or France over the US.
So you're a xenophobic ass as well? America uber alles!

Fact is, gay marriage doesn't cause the downfall of civilisation, contrary to what you fascists would like us to think. Fact is, it allows homosexuals the pursuit of happiness, which is in your constitution, I think.

Your just a homophobe. What's the real reason?

Fact is, it allows homosexuals the pursuit of happiness, which is in your constitution, I think.
Its in the Declaration of Independence.

To the people stating their gay.

That's awesome, That's cool. Do what you like. Just don't destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Haha, that's funny. It isn't gay people who are ruining marriage - straight people in your country did that a long long time ago, and you are a homophobic hypocrite for wanting to judge gay people by some other standard. Not to mention that you haven't come with anything substantial at all so far...

I'm fortunate enough and proud to live in a country where gay marriage is legal, gays can adopt, where discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is illegal, and a gender neutral marriage is going to be introduced in a year or so. And, yes, we are better than the US, thank you very much. :p

Its in the Declaration of Independence.
Sorry, *not American*.

Marriage is a dying institution anyway. Honestly, I don't see why rising divorce rates are automatically "bad." It just means that divorce has been less stigmatized. Rising divorce rates don't nessicarily mean more people are beating their spouses or coming home drunk every night or whatever. It just means that if someone is beating thier spouse, or is coming home drunk every night, or even if you just don't want to be with them any more, you can divorce them without a social stigma attached to it.

In my opinion, marriage should be a strictly religious institution. Allow the religions choose who they want to marry, gay, straight, whatever. The government gives out civil unions for tax purposes, etc to both gay and straight couples. If two people want to get married religiously, then that's their thing. The point is that marriage is a religious institution in most cultures, and the government doesn't need to be involved.

I know I'm not the first to present this opinion, but hey, whatever. It's just my two cents.

There was a really good article posted online about this. Of the ten states with highest divorce rates, all ten were Red states. Of the ten with the lowest divorce rates (MA included) 8 were blue states. Further, most of those were states with the HIGHEST marriage rates. So blue states are getting married more and staying married more. Kind of makes you wonder why red states are so keen to force the "morality" they aren't living off on others.
No, most of the red states are the ones with higher marraige rates. If you look here, it shows the real picture. Of course the red states, which have higher marraige rates, will have higher divorce rates. :
http://tinypic.com/m39kp

Its not quite as clear cut as you'd wish...

You do know that you can just go to any city hall and request a marriage license, simply for legal purposes, with no church or religion of any kind involved.

Five words:
SEPARATION
OF
CHURCH
AND
STATE.

Unfortunately, it seems those are five words that everybody seems to have trouble remembering...

Too bad, really...

Haha, that's funny. It isn't gay people who are ruining marriage - straight people in your country did that a long long time ago, and you are a homophobic hypocrite for wanting to judge gay people by some other standard. Not to mention that you haven't come with anything substantial at all so far...

I'm fortunate enough and proud to live in a country where gay marriage is legal, gays can adopt, where discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is illegal, and a gender neutral marriage is going to be introduced in a year or so. And, yes, we are better than the US, thank you very much. :p

Sounds like a good country. Canada or Scandanavia? I might have to move once I finish school.

Marriage is a dying institution anyway. Honestly, I don't see why rising divorce rates are automatically "bad." It just means that divorce has been less stigmatized. Rising divorce rates don't nessicarily mean more people are beating their spouses or coming home drunk every night or whatever. It just means that if someone is beating thier spouse, or is coming home drunk every night, or even if you just don't want to be with them any more, you can divorce them without a social stigma attached to it.

In my opinion, marriage should be a strictly religious institution. Allow the religions choose who they want to marry, gay, straight, whatever. The government gives out civil unions for tax purposes, etc to both gay and straight couples. If two people want to get married religiously, then that's their thing. The point is that marriage is a religious institution in most cultures, and the government doesn't need to be involved.

I know I'm not the first to present this opinion, but hey, whatever. It's just my two cents.


You do realize that governmental marriage goes FAR FAR FAR beyond just tax purposes? There are over 800 rights that married couples have. These include really important ones like joint-custody of children, automatic next of kin status, the right to make end-of-life decisions for an end of life partner, and joint ownership of property.

Sounds like a good country. Canada or Scandanavia? I might have to move once I finish school.

Sweden.

I'm gay.

I've learned to ignore most of what term says. It's usually worthless for anything but amusement.

Occasionally he does say something good, but then a monkey in front of a keyboard long enough will eventually type out a Shakespearean sonnet.

actually if you chain a monkey to a keyboard pretty soon he'll start throwing shit around

Sweden.

I'm going to show my limited cultural knowledge. . .does everyone in Sweden speak English or would I have to learn a second langauge? And do y'all have social healthcare or can you have a private practice there too?

Actually I think you will find the person who made the Britney comment yu were referrign to you agrees with you. You have to read the whole chain of that discussion to get it. Trust me on this one :)
Cool--upon rereading my comment, I realize I sounded quite snippy. Sorry about that.

I'm going to show my limited cultural knowledge. . .does everyone in Sweden speak English or would I have to learn a second langauge? And do y'all have social healthcare or can you have a private practice there too?

Well, Swedish people speak Swedish, but it is one of the most anglicised non-anglophone countries in the world and everyone is taught English in school. I have yet to meet a single Swede under the age of 50 who hasn't been able to speak it. You can get by really well with English, but if you plan on living here, you will eventually have to learn to speak Swedish, yes.

We do have "social" healthcare, but that doesn't preclude anyone from having a private practice. Private practices are quite common and I myself go to a private doctor.

Well, Swedish people speak Swedish, but it is one of the most anglicised non-anglophone countries in the world and everyone is taught English in school. I have yet to meet a single Swede under the age of 50 who hasn't been able to speak it. You can get by really well with English, but if you plan on living here, you will eventually have to learn to speak Swedish, yes.

We do have "social" healthcare, but that doesn't preclude anyone from having a private practice. Private practices are quite common and I myself go to a private doctor.

Sounds very tempting I must admit. I would probably love to learn Swedish. . .but I found out in high school and college that languages are really difficult--english I have no trouble with, but spanish and french were nightmares. Still, being immersed in it would probably be interesting.

I'll have to look into immigration laws. Probably will end up in Canada though . . . its a little closer to home and I would like to be able to see my family on occasion (just not for more than three days at a time!) :)

You do realize that governmental marriage goes FAR FAR FAR beyond just tax purposes? There are over 800 rights that married couples have. These include really important ones like joint-custody of children, automatic next of kin status, the right to make end-of-life decisions for an end of life partner, and joint ownership of property.

Yes. The point is that the term "Civil Union" would adopt these benefits and the term marrige would be a religious as opposed to religious and political union.

Yes. The point is that the term "Civil Union" would adopt these benefits and the term marrige would be a religious as opposed to religious and political union.

And I would have absolutely no problem with that. Particularly given that some religious groups already perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals--we'll still be married. You know, come to think of it, maybe instead of fighting for gay rights we should be fighting for religious rights. There are religions out there who can't practice their beliefs because gays can't legalls marry. . . they are being treated as second class religions.

No.

To the original question.

This is going to divide western society more than anything past yet I think,

and could even destroy it.

I guess things might have to get even worse than they are, before they start

to get abit better.

I just hope I'm still around, to see it happen.

No.

To the original question.

This is going to divide western society more than anything past yet I think,

and could even destroy it.

I guess things might have to get even worse than they are, before they start

to get abit better.

I just hope I'm still around, to see it happen.

Kid, western society has been through wars, propaganda, media takeovers, rampant capitalism, and the 60's.

It's gonna take a lot more then equality to destroy it, champ.

your all retarded.

letting fag's 'n lezbo's marry isn't going to destroy western civilization, or trample on religious rights, or affect you personally.

it will bring up the divorce rate...because thats what happens to 50% of married couples.

so suck it up, you fucking right wing, fascist peices of shit who need to wrap your mind around the fact that some people are gay, and may fall inlove

your all retarded.

letting fag's 'n lezbo's marry isn't going to destroy western civilization, or trample on religious rights, or affect you personally.

it will bring up the divorce rate...because thats what happens to 50% of married couples.

so suck it up, you fucking right wing, fascist peices of shit who need to wrap your mind around the fact that some people are gay, and may fall inlove

First: Try using less expletives and being a bit more polite.

Second: Did you say it will bring up divorce rates? In any case, I would think they would either stay the same or go down.

First: Try using less expletives and being a bit more polite.

Second: Did you say it will bring up divorce rates? In any case, I would think they would either stay the same or go down.

sorry.
And thats also a possiblity. I belive it may go up

[QUOTE=Lester P Jones]
letting fag's 'n lezbo's marry isn't going to destroy western civilization

Its a substancial part of what will undermine it completely.




or trample on religious rights,

I'll have to remember that, when the next christophobe comes screaming into

a mass about gay rights.


or affect you personally.

It does when I cant voice my opposition to it, without copping abuse back.

it will bring up the divorce rate...because thats what happens to 50% of married couples.

I would say gays would probably divorce at a rate even higher.



so suck it up, you fucking right wing, fascist peices of shit who need to wrap your mind around the fact that some people are gay, and may fall inlove

Your all class :rolleyes:

Umm. If im totally honest, Terminalia's response just here scares me a bit.

What makes you think letting homosexual civil unions will "undermine" Western society? Thats what you just typed, right? Surely, if anything, it wont undermine society, but stregthen it, because if the land of the free TRULY IS the land of the free, then the fact that theyre not letting a whole group of its people be free is VASTLY more undermining of society than, god help us, giving the awful gays rights!

Secondly, stop associating people who fights for rights as "Christophobes". People who care about thier own and other peoples future doesnt and shouldnt give them the tag of "having a phobia against the Christian religion". That flippant statement is just plain silly.

Copping abuse back? Well, that just depends who youre talking to. It cant affect you personally, itd go against free speech laws. You know those of course. When youre buying into steretypical "My religion > Your basic rights" people might just give you a shocked response at your lack of empathy, like me. So give that avenue a rest, its not affecting you personally.

And I have NO idea what makes you think gays will divorce at a rate higher than the current divorce rate. Of course, fundamental beliefs state that divorce is bad. So, the only two conclusions i can think of (you know, since you gave us none yourself) is that you WANT it to be higher, in a vague backup of your belief that homosexuals are undeserving, or that you buy into the myth that gay people cannot commit.


Huh, youre very much classy yourself.

Umm. If im totally honest, Terminalia's response just here scares me a bit.

What makes you think letting homosexual civil unions will "undermine" Western society? Thats what you just typed, right? Surely, if anything, it wont undermine society, but stregthen it, because if the land of the free TRULY IS the land of the free, then the fact that theyre not letting a whole group of its people be free is VASTLY more undermining of society than, god help us, giving the awful gays rights!

Secondly, stop associating people who fights for rights as "Christophobes". People who care about thier own and other peoples future doesnt and shouldnt give them the tag of "having a phobia against the Christian religion". That flippant statement is just plain silly.

Copping abuse back? Well, that just depends who youre talking to. It cant affect you personally, itd go against free speech laws. You know those of course. When youre buying into steretypical "My religion > Your basic rights" people might just give you a shocked response at your lack of empathy, like me. So give that avenue a rest, its not affecting you personally.

And I have NO idea what makes you think gays will divorce at a rate higher than the current divorce rate. Of course, fundamental beliefs state that divorce is bad. So, the only two conclusions i can think of (you know, since you gave us none yourself) is that you WANT it to be higher, in a vague backup of your belief that homosexuals are undeserving, or that you buy into the myth that gay people cannot commit.


Huh, youre very much classy yourself.

/cheering and clapping/

Because it's not like straight couples get divorces or anything... :headbang: THINK.

Because it's not like straight couples get divorces or anything... :headbang: THINK.

But thinking is so *hard*...

You have to use effort!
That's no fun...

:p

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorces



This article makes me question if even the most DEVOUT gay couples that ran out and got a marriage license ASAP cannot even withstand a short term marriage, what makes them able to withstand a civil union? This would cause a disaster of paperwork and expenses, transferring those rights every couple of months when ever they found a new partner. The US cannot stand for this.

A ban in Massachusetts needs to be put in place.

By your logic, no one here in Japan should ever be allowed get married, because "Narita divorces" (http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~melmoth/japan/n.html#naritadivorce) are on the increase.


:rolleyes:

Umm. If im totally honest, Terminalia's response just here scares me a bit.

What makes you think letting homosexual civil unions will "undermine" Western society? Thats what you just typed, right? Surely, if anything, it wont undermine society, but stregthen it, because if the land of the free TRULY IS the land of the free, then the fact that theyre not letting a whole group of its people be free is VASTLY more undermining of society than, god help us, giving the awful gays rights!

Secondly, stop associating people who fights for rights as "Christophobes". People who care about thier own and other peoples future doesnt and shouldnt give them the tag of "having a phobia against the Christian religion". That flippant statement is just plain silly.

Copping abuse back? Well, that just depends who youre talking to. It cant affect you personally, itd go against free speech laws. You know those of course. When youre buying into steretypical "My religion > Your basic rights" people might just give you a shocked response at your lack of empathy, like me. So give that avenue a rest, its not affecting you personally.

And I have NO idea what makes you think gays will divorce at a rate higher than the current divorce rate. Of course, fundamental beliefs state that divorce is bad. So, the only two conclusions i can think of (you know, since you gave us none yourself) is that you WANT it to be higher, in a vague backup of your belief that homosexuals are undeserving, or that you buy into the myth that gay people cannot commit.


Huh, youre very much classy yourself.

*ahem*

Gather round and I will explain why fundaloonies believe this sort of nonsense.

The various churches over the past few decades have had rifts develop in them. Much of the tensions has precisely everything to do with homosexuality/gay rights/marriage/gay clergy and members. As you are aware people are heavily polarized on this issue along political lines. Elements within most Chrsitian churches and outside Christian organizations do a lot to "educate" the more conservative Christians on the evils of homosexuality, going well beyond what is actually taught in the bible including most if not all of the lunacy you'd see spewed in discussions like these. Then there is the more moderate and probably smaller element which accepts homosexuals.

Organized religions do not like dissent amongst their ranks let alone full blown break ups. The Episcopal Church is being torn apart by the election of a gay bishop and that's just one example of various churches' internal political struggle for "good morals" which is also being fought out in the public arena. Enter gay marriage ban (Defense of Marriage Act) which is nothign more than a political prize to Christian churches to give them legal authority to disallow gay marriages even in more liberal congregations and in one fell swoop patching a bandage on an institution that has always had issues with social evolution while some are lead to believe it is marriage in jeopardy.

Because it's not like straight couples get divorces or anything... :headbang: THINK.

No really?

Did I say they didnt?


Bang your head more idiot, you might knock some sense into it.

Kid, western society has been through wars, propaganda, media takeovers, rampant capitalism, and the 60's.
It's gonna take a lot more then equality to destroy it, champ.

I disagree Tiger, the 60's was just the start of the rot, wide

spread`drug usage etc, a good reason why the west is so screwed up today.

I disagree Tiger, the 60's was just the start of the rot, wide

spread`drug usage etc, a good reason why the west is so screwed up today.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that homosexuality comes from drug usage?!

Term, you really arn't one of a kind. There have been people just like you all across history. And you know what? They've all been forgotten. Every single one of them. Because they were wrong. I see inneracial marriges, and the world has yet to end. I see women with jobs, and yet the Earth continues to turn.

That's why you're funny. Because you're wrong, and history will prove you wrong, just like it always has. And you're arguments are old, outdated, and illogical. And, like I said, everything you're saying now will just be forgotten one day. **sighs** Such a sad little boy, really.

=Tittybiscuitia
What makes you think letting homosexual civil unions will "undermine" Western society? Thats what you just typed, right? Surely, if anything, it wont undermine society, but stregthen it,


Wrong, it will ruin it.


because if the land of the free TRULY IS the land of the free, then the fact that theyre not letting a whole group of its people be free is VASTLY more undermining of society than, god help us, giving the awful gays rights!

Bullshit, its not like gays have been pushing for this right to have an

unnatural unions such as this, recognised as the same as heterosexual

marriage for centuries is it?

You guys will still carry on doing what you do, regardless of whether civil

unions are recognised or not, so why have something you dont need.

[QUOTE=Goed Twee]Wait, are you seriously suggesting that homosexuality comes from drug usage?!
No...

that is your spin on what I'm saying.

Wake up.

Term, you really arn't one of a kind. There have been people just like you all across history. And you know what? They've all been forgotten. Every single one of them. Because they were wrong. I see inneracial marriges, and the world has yet to end. I see women with jobs, and yet the Earth continues to turn.

No shit.


Has gay marriages been recognised throughout history as normal as

well genius?

I dont think it has.

People of different races have always been intermarring, women have always

been working, what does your stupid analogy got to do, with seeing gay

marriages as the same as ones between men and women.

If anyone should be forgotten here its someone like you, because your

against free speech.

[QUOTE]
No...

that is your spin on what I'm saying.

Wake up.
Hey, YOU'RE the one who said "Homosexuality will end civilization. This started in the 60's with drug usage"



No shit.


Has gay marriages been recognised throughout history as normal as
DO
well genius?
NOT
I dont think it has.
SKIP
People of different races have always been intermarring, women have always
LINES
been working, what does your stupid analogy got to do, with seeing gay
marriages as the same as ones between men and women.
If anyone should be forgotten here its someone like you, because your
against free speech.

I'm against free speech? When? The only thing I want to outlaw is your irritating method of constantly skipping a line.

And...yes. Yes, gay relationships always has and always will happen. Same as interacial relationships. Same as women not sitting in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Grow up, little boy, and read your histry and your facts a little better.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorces



This article makes me question if even the most DEVOUT gay couples that ran out and got a marriage license ASAP cannot even withstand a short term marriage, what makes them able to withstand a civil union? This would cause a disaster of paperwork and expenses, transferring those rights every couple of months when ever they found a new partner. The US cannot stand for this.

A ban in Massachusetts needs to be put in place.

How can I say... troll.

Wrong, it will ruin it.




Bullshit, its not like gays have been pushing for this right to have an

unnatural unions such as this, recognised as the same as heterosexual

marriage for centuries is it?

You guys will still carry on doing what you do, regardless of whether civil

unions are recognised or not, so why have something you dont need.

Don't need?
Don't need legally sanctioned status as joined?
Hmm.

I have one thing to say...
If letting homosexuals marry will 'destroy' western society, I think we'd all like to see a logical proof of that. I've heard plenty of people say it, but nobody that will back it up.

At risk of (pardon) speaking to a brick wall, I thought I'd give it a shot here.
To my research on this matter, I can see no evidence that homosexual marriage damages the importance of marriage in general.

For my part, I have found that people who believe homosexuality is perverted and unnatural often believe there is a fundamental gulf between humanity and the rest of (pardon) God's creations, one which sets us apart and gives us faculties and responsibilities, and even natural features, which the rest of said creation is not party to. For example, advanced thought. While a crow may fashion a tool for gaining food by bending a pipe cleaner, it does not create works of art to express deeper understandings of the world around it.
You see, this also cleanly circumvents any argument that there is homosexuality in nature. As a matter of faith, that means the answer is a clear "that doesn't count." Permanent matings of vultures and wolves who are of the same gender are ignored on the basis that these creatures are inferior and therefore capable of inferior action.
This same culture and philosophy brings forth concepts such as manifest destiny, wherein a nation believes that God is on its side, and that its expansion and prosperity are divinely granted; that your tribe, your kingdom alone must go forth, be fruitful and multiply, turning all nature under your plow and converting heathens through whatever means necessary.

You're working against a culture which cannot understand the possibility, be it correct or incorrect, that humans sprung from nature. That humans were created with the rest of the garden, not as the final, independent magnum opus. Did God create the heavens and earth, and make the lion and the grass and the dinosaur by saying their names and creating them from nothing, then think to himself, "now I'm going to mold the clay of this land and breathe my precious, divine breath into this flawed critter which can barely sustain its bipedal movement, and call it lord of all nature"? Or did God create the heavens and earth and populate it with all manner of fascinating creatures, like the dinosaur, the mammoth, the dolphin, the crow, and give to a small section of a wide primate family an intense curiousity and the faculties to shape tools like language, mathematics and spears instead of giving them advanced senses of smell?

Of course, as a pagan proponent of divinely guided evolution, I'm under the opinion that the overbearing importance of humans is a naive standpoint, but I'm also of the opinion that I could be wrong and destined for the firey pits of another faith's hell. Or maybe I'll be reincarnated into a Hungry Ghost, destined to feed off others parasitically until such time as my karma is spent and I can return as an animal on my way up the totem. *shrugs*


In short, I believe homosexuality in wolves, infidelity among prairie dogs, and the human ability to create advanced polymer plastics all have one thing in common. They're all intended, and they're all natural. Just like rabbits in Australia. Sure, they're introduced, and they're destroying everything, but are we really surprised? They're just practicing the divine mandate that they should be fruitful and multiply!

Has it occured to you, llama dude, that not only the loud, god-smitten nazi Christians of America might be made in God's image? That, blasphemy though it may be to you, the Ubange and the Chinese and the transsexual lesbian and the Cree and the Basque and the antelope and the amoeba might all be made in the same image? That all might be one, and what is good for the goose is good for the human?
Perhaps not. I believe this to be true. You needn't believe, but I beseech you to entertain the idea.

=Goed Twee]Hey, YOU'RE the one who said "Homosexuality will end civilization. This started in the 60's with drug usage"


No spin-artist, this is what I said, below, which you stretched like a typical

liar would.

I disagree Tiger, the 60's was just the start of the rot, wide

spread`drug usage etc, a good reason why the west is so screwed up today.


Accepting homosexuality, as normal, teaching that in schools, and Universitys

is part of what will end the western world, in this present form anyway.

Do you think this will last forever?

A lot of Ancient civilisations once flourished too, where are they now fool?




I'm against free speech? When?

By calling people who are against homosexuality being accepted in public

mainstream opinion, homophobic, its a gutless way to avoid debate or proper

arguement on a subject, by simply flinging a name at someone, to garner

support from other people.



And...yes. Yes, gay relationships always has and always will happen.

No......shit.



Same as interacial relationships.


see above.

Same as women not sitting in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

You really have alimited view of domesticated women in past ages, to

educate you, away from your tired little chestnut/clique, alot of ancient

women although at home, had slaves to do alot of the work,even the poorest

of women in Rome or Greece, Egypt etc usually had at least one slave to run

errands, get water etc

They also usually wore shoes of some format.

Try and think outside your little hillbilly description for once, you might

actually learn something.


Grow up, little boy, and read your histry and your facts a little better.

LMAO you have no idea how dumb you really are.

[QUOTE=Neo-Anarchists]Don't need?
Don't need legally sanctioned status as joined?
Hmm.

No, you really dont.

How will being legally recognised as married, help you?




If letting homosexuals marry will 'destroy' western society, I think we'd all like to see a logical proof of that.


Dont worry, you will.

At risk of (pardon) speaking to a brick wall, I thought I'd give it a shot here.
To my research on this matter, I can see no evidence that homosexual marriage damages the importance of marriage in general.
For my part, I have found that people who believe homosexuality is perverted and unnatural often believe there is a fundamental gulf between humanity and the rest of (pardon) God's creations, one which sets us apart and gives us faculties and responsibilities, and even natural features, which the rest of said creation is not party to. For example, advanced thought. While a crow may fashion a tool for gaining food by bending a pipe cleaner, it does not create works of art to express deeper understandings of the world around it.
You see, this also cleanly circumvents any argument that there is homosexuality in nature. As a matter of faith, that means the answer is a clear "that doesn't count." Permanent matings of vultures and wolves who are of the same gender are ignored on the basis that these creatures are inferior and therefore capable of inferior action.
This same culture and philosophy brings forth concepts such as manifest destiny, wherein a nation believes that God is on its side, and that its expansion and prosperity are divinely granted; that your tribe, your kingdom alone must go forth, be fruitful and multiply, turning all nature under your plow and converting heathens through whatever means necessary.
You're working against a culture which cannot understand the possibility, be it correct or incorrect, that humans sprung from nature. That humans were created with the rest of the garden, not as the final, independent magnum opus. Did God create the heavens and earth, and make the lion and the grass and the dinosaur by saying their names and creating them from nothing, then think to himself, "now I'm going to mold the clay of this land and breathe my precious, divine breath into this flawed critter which can barely sustain its bipedal movement, and call it lord of all nature"? Or did God create the heavens and earth and populate it with all manner of fascinating creatures, like the dinosaur, the mammoth, the dolphin, the crow, and give to a small section of a wide primate family an intense curiousity and the faculties to shape tools like language, mathematics and spears instead of giving them advanced senses of smell?
Of course, as a pagan proponent of divinely guided evolution, I'm under the opinion that the overbearing importance of humans is a naive standpoint, but I'm also of the opinion that I could be wrong and destined for the firey pits of another faith's hell. Or maybe I'll be reincarnated into a Hungry Ghost, destined to feed off others parasitically until such time as my karma is spent and I can return as an animal on my way up the totem. *shrugs*
In short, I believe homosexuality in wolves, infidelity among prairie dogs, and the human ability to create advanced polymer plastics all have one thing in common. They're all intended, and they're all natural. Just like rabbits in Australia. Sure, they're introduced, and they're destroying everything, but are we really surprised? They're just practicing the divine mandate that they should be fruitful and multiply!
Has it occured to you, llama dude, that not only the loud, god-smitten nazi Christians of America might be made in God's image? That, blasphemy though it may be to you, the Ubange and the Chinese and the transsexual lesbian and the Cree and the Basque and the antelope and the amoeba might all be made in the same image? That all might be one, and what is good for the goose is good for the human?
Perhaps not. I believe this to be true. You needn't believe, but I beseech you to entertain the idea.No thanks.

I am an athiest, but I went to church last night (christmas eve), just because my family likes me to. It was a catholic church in holland. And the priest even spoke in favor of gay marriage. What he said was very wise; a gay couple should be allowed to marry for the state (which is the case in holland), but they can't marry in my church. He was not a homophobe, but he didn't want to upset the pope, and other high catholic priests. And it will only be a matter of time before more and more priests in europe think the same way. And then, the USA will follow. The USA have always been culturally backwards.. That's not an insult, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. They believe so strongly in their supriority, that they do not want to change their culture (I'm talking about the rednecks here, not the people from boston, new york or san francisco or anything :)) That's probably why so many muslims hate america.

hmm looks like the decline of the Christian faith in Europe has accelerated,

whereas the Muslim faith is growing.

Expect prayer towers to be errected throughout Amsterdam one day Nwaby,

calling you, whether you like it or not, to Allah.

And like those bad ol American rednex you despise, they funnily enough do

not accept homosexuality, in any form either.

And like those bad ol American rednex you despise, they funnily enough do

not accept homosexuality, in any form either.


most backwards cultures don't. :p

I think they should just make civil unions and marriages to be about the same thing. Though keep marriages to hetro's, and civil unions to both. Only reason for this is because the idea of Marriage has been so entwined with religions and the church. If they just take a more government word for it, aka civil union, it gives it a non-church/ non-relgious sound, and thus limit the arguement of, Its against G-D!

Though to the Christian I say this, "Obey the law of the land" I do believe it was said by Christ. Saying obey the law, and know that every ruler is there by the will of G-d. Also it says that in your heart is where you obey G-d's law.

And to the Jew or Old Testament Christian I say this, Show me where it says a lesbian is a sinner! I do believe it says, do not love a man like you would a woman.

most backwards cultures don't. :p

So you see the acceptance of homosexuality, no matter what the social

damage as not backward?

So you see the acceptance of homosexuality, no matter what the social

damage as not backward?

What social damage?

So you see the acceptance of homosexuality, no matter what the social

damage as not backward?

There is no true "social Damage"
All social damage means is that the culture has changed in a negitive way compared to what the writer feels is right and wrong. The "damage" is just the world shifting more away from their mind frame.

What social damage?

Perversion.

There is no true "social Damage"
All social damage means is that the culture has changed in a negitive way compared to what the writer feels is right and wrong. The "damage" is just the world shifting more away from their mind frame.

The world?

No aloud and noisy minority dictating to the rest of society, what the status

quo now is, you will get a backlash from this soon.

Perversion.

That's a bit abstract. Be more specific.

...you will get a backlash from this soon.

Torches and pitchforks? :D

The world?

No aloud and noisy minority dictating to the rest of society, what the status

quo now is, you will get a backlash from this soon.


Its true, the term is one of theology, what "damage" was done? Was it damageing when the world was found round? Because at the time I'm sure people argued that the mere thought of it was a challege of all that was holy. When I used the word, world, I didn't say the Earth. the word world can mean many things, the context that I used it in is that the person's world is changing, even though they don't want it to, showing that they are powerless, as a singel to change society. Society is built by those in it, but not made by one person.

I seriously think the person who started this thread is indeed homophobic and not at all understanding. There are stupid people in EVERY group -- black, white, asian, straight, gay, bisexual.

A few people (or sometimes many people) are going to do stupid things with the rights they are given. Get over it. They can do that. It's a free country.

So you see the acceptance of homosexuality, no matter what the social

damage as not backward?

I see your opinion as backward. I highly recommend reading what is written at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty. America is supposed to accept anyone and everyone. That means giving every citizen the same rights. How is that backward?

Yes... I suppose to entertain the concepts presented by somebody speaking such things would be inherently wrong, wouldn't it. The devil can quote scripture, and surely his favorite tool is any religion, philosophy or logic (whatever my various statements count as) which defy reality. Reality being defined by your religious teachings.
In short, because I don't use the same base assumptions, and thus draw different conclusions, I'm probably wrong.
I have no idea how comfortable you are in your viewpoints and philosophy, Terminalia (also known as Threat of the Day to my Rights.) Judging by your repeated text assault on homosexuals, people of other cultures, and anything that does not fit your probably narrow perception of right and wrong, I suspect you are, in fact, fairly uncomfortable and feel threatened by sinners.
Consider this. Does it matter?

Really. Assume for a moment that we, myself for instance who likes nice, yummy buttsex and believes in no gods that you do, are hell-bound sinners. Will we still be hell-bound sinners if you outlaw things we want that help us sin together? Will the divorce rate among heterosexuals increase if homosexual marriage is recognized by the state? Will you go to hell because the laws of the land differ from the laws of your church?

To the first, I posit the answer yes. We will, in fact, still be hell-bound sinners, evil people who love in a way that is alien to you and produce no offspring; and yet, children and relatives of your descendents will occasionally turn out to be just like us even when we ourselves are gone, because that's how homosexuality works. It's hardly hereditary, and there's little evidence that it's "catching." So yes, there will still be hell-bound sinners even if the entire country turns Muslim or Fundy or Catholic or Jewish or atheist. That is the answer I posit. The laws you wish to remain or to put in place won't change it.

Will your divorce rate increase as a result of our lesbians loving and adopting children? I posit an answer: No. I don't think think it will as a result of that. Or as a result of me wearing a dress and pretending I'm Marilyn Monroe. Or if I hang from piercings through my back in my closed garage or whatever. Especially, I don't think your divorce rates will increase just because I marry Joe. He's in public service right now and is unavailable. *shrugs*
I think your marriage is as safe and secure as you, as a couple (I assume couple? Maybe more than two, there are polyamorists out there and you could be one of them) make it. Perhaps you'll use faith to get through the inevitable hard times that every couple suffers. Perhaps you'll divorce because your faith allows the concept of irreconcilable differences, or maybe you just won't like eachother. Maybe you'll be excellent examples for your entire subculture and will entertain dinner parties and everything will be perfect and peachy. I don't think laws permitting evil sinners bound for hell to band together in loving lifelong pairings is going to effect that in the slightest.

Will you go to hell because the law of the land you live in allows us to sin legally? Because we get the same tax and hospital vagueries, the same legal benefits, as your marriage? I posit the answer "No," predictably, because you would not be the sinner. Especially if you continue your faithful religious duty of spreading your... well, frankly, salacious lies about myself and my fellows in an attempt to keep this country free of sin from at least *one* front. See, if you keep working at this, that makes you a good person in the eyes of your own personal jesus, meaning that, as far as you're concerned, you're going to heaven while the rest of us heathen evil people are going to hell where we will burn forever, blinded by the barest glimpse of your vengeful god before we are cast far away from his light, which we clearly never deserved from the moment we began to love. This would apply even to alien cultures who allow homosexual marriage and who might never have been exposed to the pure light of your saving, open, fear-based faith. Millions, even billions of people who will never see the pure light of your god! GO! SAVE THEM! They know not what they do!
We have been told about your god, your vengeful god, and we turn our backs because we don't believe in him. I believe you'll go to a place where you will consolidate your lessons in this life before returning to this world and joining us all in another. Clearly this is not heaven, nor hell, nor purgatory. It's the summerland, in a not-necessarily-linear sense of time and in a faith that is as strange as yours, and perhaps more diverse. I also believe I could be wrong, but that it won't matter because you probably are, too, either way.
These people, like the underexposed Chinese or the Hindus or the Muslims or the Ubange or whatever, are also human. And guess what! Whether you believe their ancestors turned their backs on God, or that they themselves are of a different sort, they, nevertheless, are children of God and yet remain unsaved by Jebus's holy word! Perhaps, given the chance, they'll follow you in your straight, narrow path which we have ignored, and you can say to your friends, "I have saved a soul today, and I did it by leaving a bunch of forum-goers alone and moving to another country."

WHOAH, THATS A LOT OF WRITING


im just gonna skip reading that and say "okay"

Oh yes. I also believe my second-ammendment right allows me, regardless of lesser and unconstitutional laws, the right to personally own and maintain a working, large-bore artillery piece. I believe it allows you to do that, as well. Obviously, my beliefs about freedom of speech are not in question, that being another constitutionally guaranteed right.
I also feel fairly strongly about the right to ignore, a right which, being not expressly forbidden, is therefore a right belonging to us all in this strange nation. So if you don't like me, ignore me. In fact, there's even a button that can help you do it, if I reckon correctly. This applies to everybody, including all of my myriad previously friendly forum members who I just completely alienated.

Yes... I suppose to entertain the concepts presented by somebody speaking such things would be inherently wrong, wouldn't it. The devil can quote scripture, and surely his favorite tool is any religion, philosophy or logic (whatever my various statements count as) which defy reality. Reality being defined by your religious teachings.
In short, because I don't use the same base assumptions, and thus draw different conclusions, I'm probably wrong.
I have no idea how comfortable you are in your viewpoints and philosophy, Terminalia (also known as Threat of the Day to my Rights.) Judging by your repeated text assault on homosexuals, people of other cultures, and anything that does not fit your probably narrow perception of right and wrong, I suspect you are, in fact, fairly uncomfortable and feel threatened by sinners.
Consider this. Does it matter?

Really. Assume for a moment that we, myself for instance who likes nice, yummy buttsex and believes in no gods that you do, are hell-bound sinners. Will we still be hell-bound sinners if you outlaw things we want that help us sin together? Will the divorce rate among heterosexuals increase if homosexual marriage is recognized by the state? Will you go to hell because the laws of the land differ from the laws of your church?

To the first, I posit the answer yes. We will, in fact, still be hell-bound sinners, evil people who love in a way that is alien to you and produce no offspring; and yet, children and relatives of your descendents will occasionally turn out to be just like us even when we ourselves are gone, because that's how homosexuality works. It's hardly hereditary, and there's little evidence that it's "catching." So yes, there will still be hell-bound sinners even if the entire country turns Muslim or Fundy or Catholic or Jewish or atheist. That is the answer I posit. The laws you wish to remain or to put in place won't change it.

Will your divorce rate increase as a result of our lesbians loving and adopting children? I posit an answer: No. I don't think think it will as a result of that. Or as a result of me wearing a dress and pretending I'm Marilyn Monroe. Or if I hang from piercings through my back in my closed garage or whatever. Especially, I don't think your divorce rates will increase just because I marry Joe. He's in public service right now and is unavailable. *shrugs*
I think your marriage is as safe and secure as you, as a couple (I assume couple? Maybe more than two, there are polyamorists out there and you could be one of them) make it. Perhaps you'll use faith to get through the inevitable hard times that every couple suffers. Perhaps you'll divorce because your faith allows the concept of irreconcilable differences, or maybe you just won't like eachother. Maybe you'll be excellent examples for your entire subculture and will entertain dinner parties and everything will be perfect and peachy. I don't think laws permitting evil sinners bound for hell to band together in loving lifelong pairings is going to effect that in the slightest.

Will you go to hell because the law of the land you live in allows us to sin legally? Because we get the same tax and hospital vagueries, the same legal benefits, as your marriage? I posit the answer "No," predictably, because you would not be the sinner. Especially if you continue your faithful religious duty of spreading your... well, frankly, salacious lies about myself and my fellows in an attempt to keep this country free of sin from at least *one* front. See, if you keep working at this, that makes you a good person in the eyes of your own personal jesus, meaning that, as far as you're concerned, you're going to heaven while the rest of us heathen evil people are going to hell where we will burn forever, blinded by the barest glimpse of your vengeful god before we are cast far away from his light, which we clearly never deserved from the moment we began to love. This would apply even to alien cultures who allow homosexual marriage and who might never have been exposed to the pure light of your saving, open, fear-based faith. Millions, even billions of people who will never see the pure light of your god! GO! SAVE THEM! They know not what they do!
We have been told about your god, your vengeful god, and we turn our backs because we don't believe in him. I believe you'll go to a place where you will consolidate your lessons in this life before returning to this world and joining us all in another. Clearly this is not heaven, nor hell, nor purgatory. It's the summerland, in a not-necessarily-linear sense of time and in a faith that is as strange as yours, and perhaps more diverse. I also believe I could be wrong, but that it won't matter because you probably are, too, either way.
These people, like the underexposed Chinese or the Hindus or the Muslims or the Ubange or whatever, are also human. And guess what! Whether you believe their ancestors turned their backs on God, or that they themselves are of a different sort, they, nevertheless, are children of God and yet remain unsaved by Jebus's holy word! Perhaps, given the chance, they'll follow you in your straight, narrow path which we have ignored, and you can say to your friends, "I have saved a soul today, and I did it by leaving a bunch of forum-goers alone and moving to another country."

Good job. However your obsession with "yummy buttsex" and your previous promiscuity and political antics have already made HIV the number one federaly and privately funded research program in this county. Despite the fact that is doesn't kill a fraction of the people that prostate cancer or heart disease does.

So I say to you, you have better health care rights than straight people, and the govenrment acknowledeges that, so no marriage for you. At least not until you learnd to restrict your "yummy buttsex" to fewer hiv ridden partners.

You speak of this "you" remarkably collectively. I haven't actually had any yummy buttsex in at least two years. I consider this sad, actually.
Bear in mind, there are other ways in which HIV is transmitted. Most notably, and probably just as common if not moreso, heroin and morphine are taken intravenously. Probably by people who aren't terribly concerned about the safety of their needles. Quite possibly, at their relative levels of expense, by people who have to pool together resources to be able to afford it.

In short, if you really care about HIV, join a needle exchange program. Halt the spread there. For my part, I know very few homosexuals in my area who are not cautious of sexually transmitted diseases, and I know I'm just as careful about them between myself and my girlfriend as I am between myself and anybody else. Despite the fact that the latter hasn't come up since I began my current committed relationship with her.
Yes, that means I'm clean, she's clean, and yet I still like yummy buttsex. With clean people who don't use drugs. That stuff's just not healthy.

I'm a "pervert" who is concerned for my health, my philosophy, my rights, and my terrible, ailing health insurance. You should see how little good my "improved health benefits" do me when a) if I got that disease, I'd be dying, and b) I can't really go to a doctor to find out if I broke my toe a week ago. It hurts, too, but the bills are too much and my state's health plan is screwed against the absurdly poor such as myself. My education and my health are of great importance and sources of pride to me, as they seperate me from many other poor folk and speak highly of my ability to rise to the middle class in our land of the... um, free.

That's a bit abstract. Be more specific.


Saying nothing against it, or about its more public presence.

Torches and pitchforks? :D

Guns, knives, clubs, bombs and rope.

Wont be pretty, and Im not looking forward to seeing it happen either.

The word perversion in your argument is unclear and harmful to any interpretations of your statements. Perhaps a different word that is less damaging to your cause? I can't think of any, but then again, you refuse to explain the concept for which you seek a word, nor its repurcussions.

You speak of this "you" remarkably collectively. I haven't actually had any yummy buttsex in at least two years. I consider this sad, actually.
Bear in mind, there are other ways in which HIV is transmitted. Most notably, and probably just as common if not moreso, heroin and morphine are taken intravenously. Probably by people who aren't terribly concerned about the safety of their needles. Quite possibly, at their relative levels of expense, by people who have to pool together resources to be able to afford it.

In short, if you really care about HIV, join a needle exchange program. Halt the spread there. For my part, I know very few homosexuals in my area who are not cautious of sexually transmitted diseases, and I know I'm just as careful about them between myself and my girlfriend as I am between myself and anybody else. Despite the fact that the latter hasn't come up since I began my current committed relationship with her.
Yes, that means I'm clean, she's clean, and yet I still like yummy buttsex. With clean people who don't use drugs. That stuff's just not healthy.

I'm a "pervert" who is concerned for my health, my philosophy, my rights, and my terrible, ailing health insurance. You should see how little good my "improved health benefits" do me when a) if I got that disease, I'd be dying, and b) I can't really go to a doctor to find out if I broke my toe a week ago. It hurts, too, but the bills are too much and my state's health plan is screwed against the absurdly poor such as myself. My education and my health are of great importance and sources of pride to me, as they seperate me from many other poor folk and speak highly of my ability to rise to the middle class in our land of the... um, free.

Three things:

1. I hope your girlfriend is fully appraised of your past high risk behavior so she can fully judge the risks of sexual contact with you.

2. If what you say is true, the are you not living proof that the gay lifestyle is a choice.

3. Back in the late 80s early 90s, I had a girlfriend that worked at a small company. The four homosexuals there wrecked the health benefits because of their AIDS. I, being the christian that I am, ended up paying the $25,000 for her gastirc surgery, which was no longer covered as her employer had defaulted on her insurance premiums given the massive increase due to the lifetime commitment to the promiscous homosexuals. A commitment mandated by law, which oddly enough did not cover her benefits. I would pay it again, but I reckon until the aids charities pay me back, gay people can just shut up as they have better healthcare rights. In other words, no marriage for you.

3. Back in the late 80s early 90s, I had a girlfriend that worked at a small company. The four homosexuals there wrecked the health benefits because of their AIDS. I, being the christian that I am, ended up paying the $25,000 for her gastirc surgery, which was no longer covered as her employer had defaulted on her insurance premiums given the massive increase due to the lifetime commitment to the promiscous homosexuals.



Buuuuuulllllllshhhhiiiiiiitttt

she couldnt even find out about such a thing, aids patients identities are very closely gaurded, and disclosure by a doctor means losing your license.


also, is this gastric bypass surgery? cause thats not really something insurance covers unless morbidly obese and nearing death (you have bad taste in women, damn!)

Angry Fruit Salad I see your opinion as backward.

How is that backward?

I highly recommend reading what is written at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty. America is supposed to accept anyone and everyone. That means giving every citizen the same rights.

Ah, but you cant expect everyone to be on the same playing ground as each

other here, these marriage rights you want to be given to gays, are not even

needed by them.

You already have enough rights to suit your lifestyle, appropriating marriage

rights to be recognised as the same as heteros is not really necessary, you

are not the same, as much as you want to believe, or have us believe

otherwise.

ooh damn, i almost missed this, general opened up the pandora box that is: gays AND INSURANCE:

insurance companies dont want civil union for gays because that would mean THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY LESS FOR INSURANCE. Insurance comapnies back the no gay thing for that reason.


ooh boy, you opened up a world of hurt mentioning insurance.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorces



This article makes me question if even the most DEVOUT gay couples that ran out and got a marriage license ASAP cannot even withstand a short term marriage, what makes them able to withstand a civil union? This would cause a disaster of paperwork and expenses, transferring those rights every couple of months when ever they found a new partner. The US cannot stand for this.

A ban in Massachusetts needs to be put in place.

I ask of you a simple, unbiased question: How many same-sex couples have filed for divorce?

The word perversion in your argument is unclear and harmful to any interpretations of your statements. Perhaps a different word that is less damaging to your cause? I can't think of any, but then again, you refuse to explain the concept for which you seek a word, nor its repurcussions.

Main Entry: per·ver·sion
Pronunciation: p&r-'v&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the action of perverting : the condition of being perverted
2 : a perverted form; especially : an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus

Its repercussions... the end of western civilsation.

Buuuuuulllllllshhhhiiiiiiitttt

she couldnt even find out about such a thing, aids patients identities are very closely gaurded, and disclosure by a doctor means losing your license.


also, is this gastric bypass surgery? cause thats not really something insurance covers unless morbidly obese and nearing death (you have bad taste in women, damn!)

No, gastric surgery, I am not going to disclose what it was, but it was life threatening.

Back then however, Cuomo the Homo had introduced a law making aids a "catastrophe disease" but what my the girlfriend had - even though it could have killed her- was not. Hence, teh gays get the medicals, she did not and I had to pay. And that was a lot of money back then.

Also back then, and wiith her being the office manager, she knew exactly who was geting what.

I told her to just imbezzle. But she wouldn't.

1) Yep, fully appraised. The risks of my behaviour were significantly mitigated and probably dropped below most high-risk behaviours because of my precautions, and I have had full checkups in the intervening time. She's happy and well, as am I.

2) Nope, I'm not living proof that the gay lifestyle is a choice, unless one considers a heterosexual lifestyle just as much a matter of choice. I'm living proof that bisexuality is extant. My attraction to males goes a long ways back, including a crush on both Danny Elfman and the opera singer who played Raoul in the original London cast of Phantom of the Opera. I also was attracted to beautiful women at the same time.
Maybe the heterosexual lifestyle is a choice; you could, for instance, choose abstinence. If, however, living like a nun is not an acceptable choice choice of lifestyle to you, then no, the homosexual is no more a choice than that and is thus pretty much not a choice.
I seem to recall the Catholic church's standpoint on homosexuality is that, as one of God's little tests of his faithful, it is a call to that individual to be a celibate, a celebrated concept within their ranks.

I don't know where pedophilia comes from, not being a psychiatrist, and have no idea how common consensual homosexual love affairs between consenting priests, or for that matter any sort of relations between priests and nuns or parishioners, are within the Catholic church. I suspect they reflect different numbers than those suspected in common wisdom. This said, I doubt there's sufficient evidence to bring forth on this issue and ask that it not be brought up for the time being. I think it is, in itself, irrelevant to the philosophical argument at hand and would like to head it off before it goes anywhere.

3) I am sorry for your monetary loss and the poor management that was responsible for it. If your wife's gastric disease was life-threatening and was from the same onset time, she probably should have gotten equal priority. For that matter, if her gastric difficulties and thus their coverage occurred between the periods of onset of the HIV cases, I think she should have had priority over whoever came after her if her problems were, in fact, life threatening.
If her problems were not life threatening, then I'm sorry that people whose life-threatening problems were covered got priority.
Some things get mishandled. This might have been one of them. I blame the insurance company, not the victims of disease (even if they were possibly foolish in their acquisition.)
This might be comparable to a drunk driver. Drunk driving causes crashes, deaths, and collateral damage, resulting in loss of taxpayer money and loss of life. It is sometimes the result of somebody just being really stupid. I will probably never drive drunk, and hope you are wise enough to never do so yourself.

I keep forgetting! Because portions of our constitution and law are devoted to the seperation of church and state, I believe it is unlawful to have laws which favor married people over unmarried. Marriage is a philosophical and religious institution, and in my opinion has no place in a government. Its use as a ceremony reflecting the largely dualistic nature of human coupling is not universal and favors a few religions over others. Tyranny by majority is not acceptable in the United States of America, and the purpose of law put forth in the preamble of the Constitution says nothing about protection of popular *opinion.*
Therefore, in my opinion, Mormons should be able to marry as many wives as they can talk into the bargain. I should be able to marry ten people of any gender. I should even be able to make a marriage without the certificate of being a priest or padre or whatever. Because marriage should never enter into law!!!

Good. We now have a term we can agree on, albeit a strange term and strange definition.

How does your definition of perversion, or more accurately how does its assumed presence, lead to the end of Western civilization?

Personally, I don't believe homosexuality is part of both those definitions. Inapplicable in the first and largely inapplicable in the second, especially since both hinge on questionable definitions of words within the sentences. I would like to point out the use of "perverting" and "perverted" within the very definition given; the basic meaning of the word you've used remains unclear. I also point out the use of the word "normal," which, in this example, makes assumptions that probably don't take into account the work of Kinsey and his contemporaries into the psychological sciences. Although Kinsey's work is often reviled, the questions he asked are legitemately important in determining the meaning of the word "normal."

I keep forgetting! Because portions of our constitution and law are devoted to the seperation of church and state, I believe it is unlawful to have laws which favor married people over unmarried. Marriage is a philosophical and religious institution, and in my opinion has no place in a government. Its use as a ceremony reflecting the largely dualistic nature of human coupling is not universal and favors a few religions over others. Tyranny by majority is not acceptable in the United States of America, and the purpose of law put forth in the preamble of the Constitution says nothing about protection of popular *opinion.*
Therefore, in my opinion, Mormons should be able to marry as many wives as they can talk into the bargain. I should be able to marry ten people of any gender. I should even be able to make a marriage without the certificate of being a priest or padre or whatever. Because marriage should never enter into law!!!

No, marriage is a state issue.

In any event, most people find Tyranny by the majority just fine when it suits them.

I don't. That's why I support your Bill of Rights, also known as the first ten ammendments to the Constitution. Many of them were specifically included as checks against a potentially hostile majority.
Freedom of speech, for instance, exists so that you can argue with the majority and hope to sway them, change their minds, without fear of being persecuted by said majority for the act of speaking against them.
The freedom to wield judicious high calibre weapons exists so that, when the majority are a forceful bunch of jerks who have no taste for talking, you can defend yourself and your land (including the entire United States) from invading hostile forces. That way, you can keep talking!

I'm exercising my first ammendment right to convince you that all the rights are important. I hope it's working. I'm a major proponent of the basic Constitution, and what you just said reminds me why.

I don't. That's why I support your Bill of Rights, also known as the first ten ammendments to the Constitution. Many of them were specifically included as checks against a potentially hostile majority.
Freedom of speech, for instance, exists so that you can argue with the majority and hope to sway them, change their minds, without fear of being persecuted by said majority for the act of speaking against them.
The freedom to wield judicious high calibre weapons exists so that, when the majority are a forceful bunch of jerks who have no taste for talking, you can defend yourself and your land (including the entire United States) from invading hostile forces. That way, you can keep talking!

I'm exercising my first ammendment right to convince you that all the rights are important. I hope it's working. I'm a major proponent of the basic Constitution, and what you just said reminds me why.

Well if you are a believer in the 2nd ammendment as an individual right to carry all kinds of high caliber weapons, then it is harder to argue with your position.

If more of teh gays, made common cause with teh Gun people, and the argument became about freedoms and not rights, then teh gay people might do a lot better.

But they don't. Mostly they call people hillbillies and out of spite campaign to stop gun ownership. (For others).

[QUOTE=United Rotsin]Good. We now have a term we can agree on, albeit a strange term and strange definition.

Whats strange about it?

You dont believe the definition is a correct one, well if it isnt, then whoever

put it there was wrong?

How does your definition of perversion, or more accurately how does its assumed presence, lead to the end of Western civilization?

Not its presence, its acceptance.

Which I dont believe is healthy.

What you do in your home is your own buisness, provided your not hurting

etc rah rah rah

But promoting and teaching it as a normal behaviour, when you know well it

isnt, will I believe be a wrong path for western society to follow.

The way you speak lends one to believe you feel a segregation of heterosexual and homosexual may be in order. Particularly, the way you use labels like "the Gays." I'm sorry if this is not what you mean, but I fear the language you speak may perpetuate the segregation of humanity that I, personally, seek to end.
Not that it's gonna end. Discrimination is common to nearly every human culture, causing me to believe it is a natural effect of human architecture and an extension of basic human societal structures. But any chance to reduce it is good in my opinion, so I thought I'd bring it up.

Pardon if, in my current state of mind, I offer few alternatives. If you ever took any classes about open discussion or social justice (largely taught by Democrats, oftimes foolishly towing the party line), perhaps you can think back to the language recommended within them. While it's sometimes more time consuming, I find it pisses people off less.

Anyway, sorry about that. Yeah, I come from a pretty weird family and consider myself a leftist moderate. A little bit of a hypocrit, as well, but that's one of my rights. :)
Unfortunately, the way the two sides have drawn themselves out, gun control vs. gun freedom are on the same sides as gay rights vs. homosexual segregation, respectively. Same with abortion. I'm very pro-choice, but deeply considered the philosophical implications before it came up. Because I believe in reincarnation, I believed the child had a better chance a second time around and recommended it as an option in that case of accidental pregnancy. I recommend people to vote logically for the betterment of all of mankind and the preservation of their and my rights, however they feel these conditions must be met. Seems like there's a lot of disagreement on the relative importance of the two.
It's always two in Western culture, you notice that? Us vs. them, Republican vs. Democrat, Capitalist vs. Communist, Christian vs. them, protagonist vs. the universe, my god vs. your god. Dualism. It doesn't lend itself well to my religion, in which there is no universal corrupting evil, just a world in which we all live together and make our own heaven or hell right here... and the pain we cause may or may not revisit us, but magic's rules are clear whenever I use it.

Yep, I'm a right weirdo.

If more of teh gays, made common cause with teh Gun people, and the argument became about freedoms and not rights, then teh gay people might do a lot better.

But they don't. Mostly they call people hillbillies and out of spite campaign to stop gun ownership. (For others).
here's the thing about that:

most of the people who are vocally and visibly supportive of gun rights are also the sort who use "faggot" as an insult. the gun rights supporters we see the most of are also homophobes. to expect gays to make the first move and join in common cause is silly...you are expecting them to join forces with what they perceive as an armed band of homophobes, for pity's sake, and that's a little nuts. i would make the reciprocal challenge to gun owners, and say that since they are obviously the most well-armed (and, according to them, far more secure because of their arms) then they will feel safe enough to make the first move in forming this alliance. since gun owners feel so attacked in this country, they could use an alliance with another group that is facing unjust persecution for their personal activities and passions.

Terminalia, I think the bottom half of my post covers what is wrong with that definition (a problem which can be corrected), as well as my feelings on what qualifies as normal sexual behaviour.
Unless you don't know who Kinsey was. Coicidentally, they made a movie about him. It stars Liam Neeson. I haven't seen it yet.
Kinsey studied sexual behaviour, and his studies and surveys, if I reckon correctly, indicated that about a third (I think slightly more) of the American population have at least given homosexuality a shot. This might mean nothing more than a meaningful kiss, I don't know, and since the studies took place (I believe, but could be wrong) in the 50's and 60's, obviously the majority found it distasteful.
Meanwhile, half of the husbands surveyed (with the classic scientific approach that would span demographics; he was a scientist after all) had had sex outside of their marriage, and a very high percentage had had sex prior to their marriage.

What qualifies as normal is not as easy to define as you think. This puts both halves of your definition in jeopardy. It may also mean that you are far, far too late to do any "good."
Move on. Find something to go to heaven from, Terminalia. There are bigger, more important wars to fight, and better ways to go to heaven than making people miserable. Live Christ-like. It makes people happy when you do that, because it means you're doing more good in the world than you are harm. Be faithful and good, be humble and stand firm, live by the law and carry the Lord in your heart. Judge not, and cast not the first stone unless you are free of sin. In fact, I suspect his point was not to throw the rocks at all.
Get the picture?

[QUOTE=United Rotsin]The way you speak lends one to believe you feel a segregation of heterosexual and homosexual may be in order.

Impossible, there will always be closet gays identifying as hetero, self

loathing gays.

I dont want segregation either, homosexuals have always been a part of

society, I just want gays to back off from hetero values, I have no hatred for

gays, just PC.

I find myself reminded of the Gay Communist Gun Club. I remember that Phil Hartman was in that skit.

An interesting point, though. We are talking about two communities with little love between them. I'm one of those who fall within that gap.
Ironically, I refuse to own a gun because I don't think I have the will to kill another person. If I did, I'd use a .44 magnum and learn how to maintain it, but the fact is that I can't kill and won't kill unless I find a really good reason. Since the majority of guns on the street are apparently stolen from people's homes, this would mean I am merely giving a gun to a violent criminal, whether in person or by foolishness. I'm really not sure I could defend myself.
But hey, if you can, that's awesome. :)

Obviously, if the push for gay marriage is so great, then the wish for homosexual couples to be recognized in an equal manner to heterosexual couples... Marriage, in this case... is not merely a hetero issue. It is a human issue, with multiple sides.

[QUOTE=United Rotsin]IIronically, I refuse to own a gun because I don't think I have the will to kill another person.

Just squeeze the trigger, and dont think about it.

Obviously, if the push for gay marriage is so great, then the wish for homosexual couples to be recognized in an equal manner to heterosexual couples... Marriage, in this case... is not merely a hetero issue. It is a human issue, with multiple sides.

But is it so great, or is it really just hype?

As far as I can tell, it's an issue that a *goodly percentage* of the nation has significant emotional investment in. Many have significant emotional investment in seeing their traditions and theirs alone sanctified in law. Many others have a similar emotional investment in seeing those traditions ignored in favor of what they consider equality.
I consider that at least a two-sided issue. I, of course, represent the alternative of taking marriage out of the hands of law and leaving its interpretation to the public with none of its own legal repurcussions. It's not like the tradition holds up well nowadays anyway, and the inclusion of a single tradition of marriage in the face of multiple definitions probably makes it an issue of the church, not the state.


Edit: But it's a person! A human being! Maybe not a very nice one, but a person with family and friends and motivations! A life snuffed by the bullet from a gun in my hands! It is possible that I would rather die. It is equally possible that I would rather live when faced with this situation, and live with the pain I carry for having hurt a fellow individual to save myself and my loved ones. A pain that individual might not have the capacity to feel were s/he alive. It is also quite possible that I might hesitate on the trigger, feeling that preemptive remorse, and that hesitation might give my assailant a weapon to use on me and other innocents.
In the name of preserving human life, even human lives which may not be worth the trouble of preserving... and more selfishly, in the name of saving myself pain... I choose not to own a gun, a gun I fight for the right to bear.

[QUOTE]

Impossible, there will always be closet gays identifying as hetero, self

loathing gays.

I dont want segregation either, homosexuals have always been a part of

society, I just want gays to back off from hetero values, I have no hatred for

gays, just PC.

By asserting their own rights to being treated normal and getting the same legal provisions as hetero's? By trying to rise to acceptance in society they harm hetero interests?

=United Rotsin

As far as I can tell, it's an issue that a *goodly percentage* of the nation has significant emotional investment in. Many have significant emotional investment in seeing their traditions and theirs alone sanctified in law. Many others have a similar emotional investment in seeing those traditions ignored in favor of what they consider equality.
I consider that at least a two-sided issue. I, of course, represent the alternative of taking marriage out of the hands of law and leaving its interpretation to the public with none of its own legal repurcussions. It's not like the tradition holds up well nowadays anyway, and the inclusion of a single tradition of marriage in the face of multiple definitions probably makes it an issue of the church, not the state.


I dont see what a goodly percentage has to do with it, marriage is for men

and women only, its the only thing it was meant for.


Gays are way too different to heteros, to be given this 'right'.

No one gave heteros the right to marry each other, it was just natural to

start off with.

Have gays been pushing for this marriage right for thousands of years, I dont

think they have, its a recent tactic, pushed by the PC movement to

destablise the west, and one that never had a logical reason, or credibility to

begin with.

Being gay, you have to accept, that being different is the price you pay, for

not marrying and having a family.



Edit: But it's a person! A human being! Maybe not a very nice one, but a person with family and friends and motivations!

Its family probably wouldnt care that much, its friends, are probably the

same as it, scum, and its motivations are self centered, and uncaring,

starting immediately with robbing/ killing/raping/torturing you and whoever

else is under your roof.


A life snuffed by the bullet from a gun in my hands! It is possible that I would rather die. It is equally possible that I would rather live when faced with this situation, and live with the pain I carry for having hurt a fellow individual to save myself and my loved ones.

Thats the price you pay, as the years roll on and you get to watch whoever

you saved that night growing up or older, you will realise you were right to

use the firearm to protect them.

It is also quite possible that I might hesitate on the trigger, feeling that preemptive remorse, and that hesitation might give my assailant a weapon to use on me and other innocents.

Dont hesitate, fire the first one into their chest.


In the name of preserving human life, even human lives which may not be worth the trouble of preserving... and more selfishly, in the name of saving myself pain... I choose not to own a gun, a gun I fight for the right to bear.

Fair enough, learn something then, if you cant kill, to maim them.

You only get one life, and its precious, why let someone else take it without

a fight?

Sometimes you have to be hard, but only sometimes, not all the time.

By asserting their own rights to being treated normal and getting the same legal provisions as hetero's? By trying to rise to acceptance in society they harm hetero interests?

Well thats the rub here isnt it, they arent 'normal' their gay.

Not that theres much wrong with that, it just has to be recognised as deviant

behaviour, not normal.

Good job. However your obsession with "yummy buttsex" and your previous promiscuity and political antics have already made HIV the number one federaly and privately funded research program in this county. Despite the fact that is doesn't kill a fraction of the people that prostate cancer or heart disease does.

So I say to you, you have better health care rights than straight people, and the govenrment acknowledeges that, so no marriage for you. At least not until you learnd to restrict your "yummy buttsex" to fewer hiv ridden partners.

You are a moron. Why? Because HIV is by and far more prevalent (both in absolute numbers and in percentages) in STRAIGHT people. Thank you for helping to spread this disease by your nasty infatuation with vaginal intercourse.

Well if you are a believer in the 2nd ammendment as an individual right to carry all kinds of high caliber weapons, then it is harder to argue with your position.

If more of teh gays, made common cause with teh Gun people, and the argument became about freedoms and not rights, then teh gay people might do a lot better.

But they don't. Mostly they call people hillbillies and out of spite campaign to stop gun ownership. (For others).

You honestly think that gay people campaign against ownership out of spite? That's a little bit egotistical to think that someone would hold a political belief out of spite. For one, not all gay people are opposed to gun-ownership. I for one, am all for it. I just think that we should do everything reasonable to keep them out of the hands of felons and the mentally insane and that there is no reason for an average citizen to own an automatic weapon or grenade launcher.

Well thats the rub here isnt it, they arent 'normal' their gay.
Not that theres much wrong with that, it just has to be recognised as deviant behaviour, not normal.

Why?

I reassert, "normal" is either not as narrow a definition (even in something as seemingly simple as sex!) as you think it is, or it's a much more rare condition than you think it is. Assuming polls and studies are correct.
Basically, I assert that your use of "normal," "perverted," and "deviant" imply a grounding point which is mostly ficticious, albeit a commonly agreed upon fiction, like many similar fictions in history.
As to whether or not there has been a push for gay marriage in the past, I suspect you've done little independent research into the answer to that question. Luckily for you, neither have I. I've mostly been satisfied with the fact that homosexuals have been openly persecuted as evil and fair game for humankind's most violent tendencies throughout your precious Western culture for millenia, including that portion of Western culture that is called Islam. Whereas homosexuality can be hidden amidst its enemies, and thus those who are born homosexual can keep safe and alive without an infrastructure to protect them, most segregations are on the basis of visibly understood cues. In other words, "black folk" for instance *had* to put up a fight for equal rights because they'd had few within the society they were a part of. In order to be treated as equals, they had to create an infrastructure for their protection. From such things as callous rape and lynchings by people who thought themselves superior.
Homosexuals can hide among the ranks of those who hate them by simply being silent and living like nuns. It is because they are born of these people just about as often as not, and thus look exactly the same. However, this has added to social stigma because, if a person percieved as exactly the same does something that's anathema, that person therefore must have *chosen* to be different, and thus gone to the other side (whatever other side) of the line. Betrayers, traitors to the holy cause.
And worse, the cause raised against Western homosexuals was a religious cause, bringing out the worst traits of mankind in fervent, murderous intent. This happened a lot. It was awfully easy to say, "homosexual = witch."
With the consequences for stepping forward so dire, and the ability to hide so tempting, there was seldom a decent infrastructure into which a homosexual could find oneself the ability to protest. Without backing, most people have not the strength to step forward.
Those who step forward alone, even today, are often victimized.

As to gay marriage in past civilizations, there were native American tribes who seemed quite understanding to the concept.


One more thing.
If you can choose to be attracted, sexually, to a member of your same gender, then you are a very, very, very unusual person. I dare say even... abnormal. Within the scope of this meaning, the majority of normal humans, gay or straight, cannot choose in any way who they are attracted to. It is an orientation thrust upon them by your god, if you believe in him, and something you must reckon with philosophically, else be forever incorrect and, worse than ignorant, depriving yourself of knowledge of the true works of your god. This puts you in the same vein as those who turn their backs on the light you seek to bring to them; for you will have seen the Truth and turned away from it.
The Truth is that I cannot choose whether or not to be a homosexual, and so the "price" I pay is different from the price you would pay for the same. If you cannot choose to be *sexually attracted* to a member of your gender, then perhaps I can help you understand by telling you that *I cannot choose not to be.*
Believe me. It's been tried. The failure rates and suicide rates are both remarkable. Medical science would seem to indicate that homosexuality is something a person cannot choose, change, etc. and is natural.
So you imagine trying to father or mother a child by having sex with some...thing you can't even imagine being attracted to. Much less enough to simulate a marriage and a family.
The concept is absurd. It's like trying to have children via another species! (Admittedly, this is making the charitable and statistically likely assumption that you are not attracted to members of other species. That would be deviant and abnormal, wouldn't it?) No attraction, no eros, no love except perhaps that of friendship, and that's not sufficient. Eros is required, eros is the basis for children. It's a biological drive.
For us, eros turns to members of our own gender, unalterably. The "price" you refer to is very different, perhaps most similar to *sterility*. If you notice, that's also a god-given condition... and there was once a time in Christian history when a sterile man was a man who deserved no respect. A flawed, abnormal man, supposedly.

You do realize that sterility could happen to you, too? Would that make you an abomination unto god? A person who pays the price of having to clone children instead of being able to father or give birth to them? Or would you be different because you didn't choose to be sterile?

Your assertion that social stigma is a price we pay for our difference is absurd, cruel, ignorant, selfish and stupid in the face of the greater works of your very own God. You should thank Him every night for not striking your loins infertile as a lesson to you in tolerating the abundance of His intended creation.


Oh yeah. As to the guns thing, my life is not very precious to me. I'm not suicidal or anything, I just didn't grow up with a morbid fear of death like most Christians do. I believe I'll come around again, as will all things, yourself included. We'll all meet up with the divine, whatever the hell it is, and consolidate our many selves into our one selves maybe, or maybe most of what we were will pass on into the limitless ether as lost information, and then we'll return to this world as factory workers and televangelists and tech support workers and presidents and stuff, continuing the cycle as the continuous passage of the year and its seasons, reflecting our lives and deaths and rebirths, promises with its own revolution.
So I'm much more worried for other people than for myself. I'm told this is actually a good and humble viewpoint, so maybe I'd have made a good Christian if I'd been born into such a family. I suspect not, but it's always possible. Basically, I'd probably defend myself however I felt I could, possibly using martial arts training (a weapon that cannot be used on anybody I don't want it to be!) and guile. I figure there's less loss of life and less harm that way. Although it may well result in the death of the assailant, something I'd just have to either learn to cope with or commit suicide over.
I can accept that. I just don't like the idea of inhumanely wounding somebody rather than killing them, and don't like the idea of a gun with no stopping power. So wounding with my gun of choice would probably be fatal. Combine this with a fatalist and semi-pacifist philosophy, and I really don't think having a gun is a good idea. It's more likely to hurt the wrong people.


Pracus: I can think of a reason. To arm oneself against a stronger government force which, unopposed, is capable of enforcing unjust, unconstitutional laws upon an unwilling populace. Which might include yourself.
This is going beyond a single administration. Many laws have been in place for decades that violate basic constitutional rights, and oftimes, the Supreme Court, our last bastion save rebellion and voting differently between the lesser of usually two corporation-sponsored evils, has not been very good at getting rid of them. Possibly for fear of losing their places on the frickin' bench.
Every time the courts side with the constitution, I cheer. Every time they fail, I get really hopping mad and want to take this whole danged nation apart with my teeth for allowing such a breech of system. This is probably how Thomas Jefferson felt a lot of the time. The second ammendment exists partially to preserve your right, as Jefferson would have wanted, to blow up a corrupt regime and start another new one.
I seem to recall he said that should be done at least every hundred years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
Well thats the rub here isnt it, they arent 'normal' their gay.
Not that theres much wrong with that, it just has to be recognised as deviant behaviour, not normal.



Well, my desire to dye my hair hot pink may be deviant, but I still have the right to do it.

(yeah, I know I was lazy with the quote thing)

More imporantly, you don't have strong forces of nature driving you to dye your hair hot pink. At least I don't think you do; I suspect that would be unusual.

How is that backward?



Ah, but you cant expect everyone to be on the same playing ground as each

other here, these marriage rights you want to be given to gays, are not even

needed by them.

You already have enough rights to suit your lifestyle, appropriating marriage

rights to be recognised as the same as heteros is not really necessary, you

are not the same, as much as you want to believe, or have us believe

otherwise.

Homosexuals are seeking marriage rights because the rights of a civil union are currently very limited and do not allow for most of the benefits of a heterosexual married couple.

More imporantly, you don't have strong forces of nature driving you to dye your hair hot pink. At least I don't think you do; I suspect that would be unusual.

Well, self-esteem and such psychological things do indeed drive me to dye my hair hot pink, electric blue, Barney purple, and other 'unnatural' colors. I suspect these would suffice.

(if you can't tell I'm yanking your chain, just stop now,lol)

Gotcha. Forgot that I'm actually taking this f00 way too seriously. If there was any point to the argument, I'd ask you to stop saying such things because they are damaging to my points. However, if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?
If a joke damages an argument that nobody's listening to, does it really matter?

In a sense it does. It brings levity, something important and WHAT am I doing? Joke on, I be quiet for a moment now. :)
Argh. This is the problem catching me with insomnia.

I hate to break it to you, but attacking this guy over his post doesn't help at all. IT shouldn't really be an insult-fest here, just a calm debate with facts. The title is very much a debate not " OMG YOU DON'T LIKE GAY PEOPLE YOU SHOULD DIE NAZI!" and you shouldn't lump every christian or catholic in the same category because you have no damn idea.

Anyway, I'm straight. I'm also Roman Catholic, but my stance on it is. Let them marry and divorce just don't give them news coverage from every major network. Its annoying watching Gay marriage report after gay marriage report. Aside from that knock yourselves out and go get hitched, its your choice and i have no real bearing or need to bear over your personal choices.

Gotcha. Forgot that I'm actually taking this f00 way too seriously. If there was any point to the argument, I'd ask you to stop saying such things because they are damaging to my points. However, if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?
If a joke damages an argument that nobody's listening to, does it really matter?

In a sense it does. It brings levity, something important and WHAT am I doing? Joke on, I be quiet for a moment now. :)
Argh. This is the problem catching me with insomnia.


I was making a bit of a point, sadly enough,lol. I have the right to do something that's not hurting anyone but my hair, and nobody's getting all uppity about it. It might even be against the Christian religion, but nobody cares.

Homosexuals getting married does not affect anyone but the homosexuals in question, so nobody should care. It's not making it any less legal or binding for heterosexual people to get married (and divorced after 55 hours).

If you are to take into account the equality proposed by the United States Constitutions, as well as those civic codes of similar nature distributed around the world, I would say that there is a public conscience for the equal rights of man. Pertaining to the issue of discussion, why should some people be allowed to marry when others do not have the same luxury? Homosexuals have the right to exists too, and since they do exist, and since they are people just like the rest of us, should they not be treated like people, just like the rest of us? Let them enjoy being human, just like heterosexual humans can. Being gay is not a crime punishable by restrictions in law; it is a natural condition for which people live their lives. They should be able to live their lives happily, not in gloom because some person who is not in their condition feels that it is immoral.

I'm gay and I want to marry the man I love. In fact, I probably will, since I live in Canada and it's all legal in my province now. Yet, even though gay MARRIAGE(not civil unions, real marriage) has been legal for two years, anarchy, destruction and divine retribution still hasn't befallen our beautiful country. Gay marriage hasn't changed anybody's life much, except of course those lucky men and women who can finally marry the person they love: and that was a change for the best.

(I wrote this on another thread, but I thought to share it here as well.)

Maybe we could if gay couples didn't keep tying up millions of tax payers dollars in gay marriage law suits and what not!

We have problems we have to clear up first, lets fix those and throw these ones away, where they go.

The 14th admendment already allows gays to get married in our country. The only ones tying up our courts with millions of dollars are those who are using the courts to stop gay marriages. If you want to worry about other problems first, just let gay people marry so we can move on to more pressing matters, like education.

Why?

Because it isnt normal.

Homosexuals are seeking marriage rights because the rights of a civil union are currently very limited and do not allow for most of the benefits of a heterosexual married couple.

Yeah well I dont think you guys have any right to seek them in the first

place, your gay remember.

Yeah well I dont think you guys have any right to seek them in the first

place, your gay remember.

I don't think you have any right to decide that--you are an illogical bigot.

I don't think you have any right to decide that--you are an illogical bigot.


I can decide what I like, just as you can.

I can decide what I like, just as you can.

Glad you can both agree on at least something. ;)

I'm not even going to reply to the stupidity of this one (yes, I realize I just did, I mean other than that.)

I'm not even going to reply to the stupidity of this one (yes, I realize I just did, I mean other than that.)

So you dont believe in free speech or thinking even?

Glad you can both agree on at least something. ;)

He hasnt agreed.

Therefore, he can say or think what he likes, but because he views my

beliefs as offensive, I therefore according to him, cannot.

PC at its worst.

But heres something he has agreed on

'As much as it pains me to admit it, Termy is right on this one. Marriage won't stop sleeping around--just look at straight people for that one! Of course, if promiscuity is to be a reason to deny marriage, then no frat member will EVER get married legally.'

He hasnt agreed.

Therefore, he can say or think what he likes, but because he views my

beliefs as offensive, I therefore according to him, cannot.

PC at its worst.

But heres something he has agreed on

'As much as it pains me to admit it, Termy is right on this one. Marriage won't stop sleeping around--just look at straight people for that one! Of course, if promiscuity is to be a reason to deny marriage, then no frat member will EVER get married legally.'


You know Term, I've never proposed denying you the right to be a bigot or to think what you wish. I know what its like to have legislation placed against you. I would never wihs that on you. You are free to do what you want IN YOUR OWN LIFE. Why isn't controlling yourself enough? Why do you have to try to live my life for me too?

You know Term, I've never proposed denying you the right to be a bigot or to think what you wish. I know what its like to have legislation placed against you. I would never wihs that on you. You are free to do what you want IN YOUR OWN LIFE. Why isn't controlling yourself enough? Why do you have to try to live my life for me too?

I dont think I'm a bigot Pracus, or trying to live your life, everyone is jumping

on this bigot label to attack people, to justify their way of life.

Like I've said, I dont hate gays, I just cant hack seeing guys with guys, I look

away, and as you have said before, you feel squemish about women.

I dont agree on two points, gays marrying, gays raising familys.

I agree on gays being part of society, having their relationships as they

stand, much as I feel nauseated about it sometimes, gays have been

around neverless for a very long time.

I dont believe its normal behaviour, and saying animals participate in the

same activitys some times, still doesnt give it a valid reason, to be seen and

though of as normal.

It is what it is, deviant behaviour from the norm, and should be accepted as

that.

This is not about hatred, the only thing I hate is... well you know by now.

Yeah well I dont think you guys have any right to seek them in the first

place, your gay remember.

First of all, I did not state that I am homosexual. Although I am not offended by your mistake, I would greatly appreciate it if you would at least please get your facts straight.

Second, I suspect that you are merely doing some sort of low-level trolling with that statement, so it's not worth an argument, merely a :P

A ban in Massachusetts needs to be put in place.
Eh? I live in Massachusetts, and I can't really say that my life has changed at all because of gay marriages--except maybe more discussions at school. Point is, my parents are concerned about their marriage and their marriage only. Neither them nor the state can say to two loving people what is moral and what isn't, and that's the way it should be. Also, your link is dead.

I dont agree on two points, gays marrying, gays raising familys.

1. see my previous post
2. I know a lesbian couple who has adopted two Chinese kids. They are happy, healthy, normal children and you would never know by looking at them or talking to them that they have two moms. Parenting ability has no correlation with sexual orientation.

I dont think I'm a bigot Pracus, or trying to live your life, everyone is jumping on this bigot label to attack people, to justify their way of life. Like I've said, I dont hate gays, I just cant hack seeing guys with guys, I look away, and as you have said before, you feel squemish about women. I dont agree on two points, gays marrying, gays raising familys.


As we've said, you are free to believe as you wish. And if you don't think gays should marry or raise families and you think laws should be passed to prevent that, then you are indeed trying to live my life and make my decisions for me.

Further, since you can provide no logical, researched, or even remotely thought out reason as to why you feel that way, you are by definition a bigot. Your response to seeing guys with guys is a gut response that you cannot seem to get passed.


I agree on gays being part of society, having their relationships as they
stand, much as I feel nauseated about it sometimes, gays have been
around neverless for a very long time. I dont believe its normal behaviour, and saying animals participate in the same activitys some times, still doesnt give it a valid reason, to be seen and though of as normal. It is what it is, deviant behaviour from the norm, and should be accepted as that.

This is not about hatred, the only thing I hate is... well you know by now.

So blonde people should have diminsed rights--they deviate from the norm. Left handed people as well. Extremely tall and extremely short people. People who watch shows on The Learning Channel, and of course every ethnic minority. Hell, let's take rights away from all non-white male right handed protestants--after all they deviate from the norm. They aren't normal, even if similiar variations do occur in nature (on a side note you should research the difference between "normal" and the "norm").

And for the record, I don't hate you either. I hate your viewpoints, your unwillingness to listen or even consider any alternative logical viewpoint, your inability to present your own logical viewpoint, and your instant reaction that anyone who disagrees with you is just a mindless PC drone and not thinking for themself. The truth is that the only person who isn't thinking for themself in this conversation is you. You are regurgitating what you've been taught. You've told me about your father in other forums, its obvious where you got your brainwashing.

I'm sorry if its harsh, but its something that has needed to be said.

2. . . . Parenting ability has no correlation with sexual orientation.

Which Term has been told time and time again. We've cited research. He either ignores it or later pretends he's never been shown. He has never, to my knowledge, managed to debunk a source as biased or incomplete--unless you include calling the author and research "PC lackeys" . He has once or twice provided a source of his own to the contrary that someone has debunked in under five minutes for bias, generally religious.

I'm gay. I live in Kentucky, and they already banned everything from civil unions to marriage. I'm getting out of this state and never looking back. America is going hill not because of gay marriage or what have you; it's because people are so obsessed with controlling other people's lives. Just leave people alone and let them do what they want for crying out loud. If it makes you sick to see gay people in public maybe you shouldn't go in public because there's no way the govenment is going to stop us in the end. I'm a "militant homosexual," you know the kind that plan to break Marth Stewart out of jail and other such terroristic actions.

The people that are so concerned about banning gay rights are usually the ones with a lot of guilt about something they did (or wish they did) when they were younger. Just look at the senator from Virginia who recently resigned after he was found making phone calls to get a BJ from a guy one day while endorsing the amendment the next while his wife in kids were back in the Virginia hills waiting for dear old dad to come home from DC.

It's nice to know people who aren't homophobic are the norm on this board. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to use it anymore. OH YEA!!! THAT'S DESCRIMINATION!!! I FORGOT!!!!

[QUOTE=Angry Fruit Salad]First of all, I did not state that I am homosexual. Although I am not offended by your mistake, I would greatly appreciate it if you would at least please get your facts straight.

OK I thought you were, my bad.

[QUOTE=Pracus]
As we've said, you are free to believe as you wish. And if you don't think gays should marry or raise families and you think laws should be passed to prevent that, then you are indeed trying to live my life and make my decisions for me.

Yeah well, plenty of other people agree with me, so if it gets put to a simple

vote, the outcome should be abided by.



And for the record, I don't hate you either. I hate your viewpoints, your unwillingness to listen or even consider any alternative logical viewpoint,

yeah like, as if you would really consider mine. :rolleyes:

You've told me about your father in other forums, its obvious where you got your brainwashing.

To be honest, hes never talked about gays, in any sense.


So you can scratch that one out.

Yeah well, plenty of other people agree with me, so if it gets put to a simple
vote, the outcome should be abided by.
Since when did the rights of the minority depend on the whims of the majority? Not in America. Well, it SHOULDN'T at any rate. Fuck.

I know a lesbian couple who has adopted two Chinese kids. They are happy, healthy, normal children and you would never know by looking at them or talking to them that they have two moms. Parenting ability has no correlation with sexual orientation.

I dont have much of a problem with two women raising kids, not that I agree

with them getting married however, or that they assume father/mother roles,

or mother/mother roles, they should however be discreet about their

sexuality with the kids.

I dont have much of a problem with two women raising kids, not that I agree

with them getting married however, or that they assume father/mother roles,

or mother/mother roles, they should however be discreet about their

sexuality with the kids.

well duh, this is true with any parents.

its not like mom and dad say "goodnight children, were going to go fuck eachother in 15 different positions!"

Since when did the rights of the minority depend on the whims of the majority? Not in America. Well, it SHOULDN'T at any rate. Fuck.

And since when has it been the right of the minority, to dictate to the

majority, what it should and shouldnt accept?

well duh, this is true with any parents.
its not like mom and dad say "goodnight children, were going to go fuck eachother in 15 different positions!"

True.

And since when has it been the right of the minority, to dictate to the majority, what it should and shouldnt accept?

When the majority said "You know...maybe we SHOULDN'T be assholes..."

When the majority said "You know...maybe we SHOULDN'T be assholes..."

you reminded me:



OPINIONS ARE LIKE ASSHOLES, EVERYONE HAS ONE, AND NO ONE WANTS TO SEE YOURS.

When the majority said "You know...maybe we SHOULDN'T be assholes..."

Depends on what you think an arsehole is, one instance for me is a small

group of people telling a much larger group of people what it should and

shouldnt allow.

Depends on what you think an arsehole is, one instance for me is a small

group of people telling a much larger group of people what it should and

shouldnt allow.

I find it worst when a large group of people tell a small group of people "you're subhuman, because we say so, and we have more people then you do"

I find it worst when a large group of people tell a small group of people "you're subhuman, because we say so, and we have more people then you do"


like slaves. and mexicans.,


although, i agree with the mexican idea :p

I find it worst when a large group of people tell a small group of people "you're subhuman, because we say so, and we have more people then you do"

I think your being overdramatic about this, please calm down sir.

I dont consider gays subhuman,

and neither do most heteros I know.

Just dont think marriage, raising kids is for them.

I dont think I'm a bigot Pracus, or trying to live your life, everyone is jumping
on this bigot label to attack people, to justify their way of life.
Like I've said, I dont hate gays, I just cant hack seeing guys with guys, I look
away, and as you have said before, you feel squemish about women.
I dont agree on two points, gays marrying, gays raising familys.
I agree on gays being part of society, having their relationships as they
stand, much as I feel nauseated about it sometimes, gays have been
around neverless for a very long time.
I dont believe its normal behaviour, and saying animals participate in the
same activitys some times, still doesnt give it a valid reason, to be seen and
though of as normal.
It is what it is, deviant behaviour from the norm, and should be accepted as
that.
This is not about hatred, the only thing I hate is... well you know by now.

Two things:
1: Sure it's deviant from the norm. But why, pray tell, does that instantly equal wrong?

2: What is your definition of what is right and wrong?


And since when has it been the right of the minority, to dictate to the
majority, what it should and shouldnt accept?

I'm not saying you should accept a thing. I'm saying that by US law, we are allowed our rights, and forbidding them is unconstitutional. I don't care if it's accepted or not.


Depends on what you think an arsehole is, one instance for me is a small
group of people telling a much larger group of people what it should and
shouldnt allow.

Another instance being a group of people forbidding another group of rights that they are guaranteed for a reason that they cannot adequately explain.

I think your being overdramatic about this, I dont consider gays subhuman,
and neither do most heteros I know.
Just dont think marriage, raising kids is for them.

I don't really care if I can marry, I just care if I can recieve the same benefits and government-recognized status of being bound to another.

[QUOTE=Neo-Anarchists]Two things:
1: Sure it's deviant from the norm. But why, pray tell, does that instantly equal wrong?

Only in the sense that you are mimicking heterosexual values, such as

marriage and family, which dont really apply to you.


2: What is your definition of what is right and wrong?

Anything natural is right, anything such as homosexual marriages

etc is wrong, and unnecessary.




I'm not saying you should accept a thing. I'm saying that by US law, we are allowed our rights, and forbidding them is unconstitutional. I don't care if it's accepted or not.

Well you should care, because alot of people are getting jack of the bullshit.


Another instance being a group of people forbidding another group of rights that they are guaranteed for a reason that they cannot adequately explain.

We dont have to explain anything, gays dont need to marry, and shouldnt

raise kids, end of story.


I don't really care if I can marry, I just care if I can recieve the same benefits and government-recognized status of being bound to another.

I'd go with the legal benefits, such as wills, property, superannuation etc,

but not the recognition of being married.

Gay people deserve all the same rights. Why you ask? I have a very simple view of why.

For someone to deserve equal rights, here is my quick check list of what *I* believe is neccassary:

1. You are in fact human. If you are not fully evolved and are actually still a gorilla, you cannot get married. (This covers most of the general laws and rights)

2. For marriage and other things requiring adult consent, you must be considered legally sane and in control of yourself. That's all. Period.

3. There is no need for three.


You can have your own ideas about it but since no one on this planet can, or has the right to, change anyone's mind on what they believe it is pointless. I personally believe gay marriage should be legal EVEN IF THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DO NOT WANT IT. Why you ask? Because to be honest it doesn't effect the majority of people. Your religion doesn't like it? Tough, your religion does not run the country.

Then again, if your religion says they will not marry a gay couple in their temple or such due to religious reasons, but they can still obtain the same legal rights and such as any heterosexual couple then that is fine.

Homosexual people are humans and hence deserve the kindness and respect any other human should be able to expect, and respecting their marriage rights is one of those things we must show them in my opinion. (not that I'll end up changing anyone elses)

Only in the sense that you are mimicking heterosexual values, such as

marriage and family, which dont really apply to you.

why not?



Anything natural is right, anything such as homosexual marriages

etc is wrong, and unnecessary.

if "natural" is your definition of right, then all marriage is wrong and unnecessary. adoption is also wrong and unnecessary. medicine is wrong and unnecessary. cars are wrong and unnecessary. shall i go on?


We dont have to explain anything, gays dont need to marry, and shouldnt

raise kids, end of story.


"we don't have to explain anything, blacks don't need to marry whites, and shouldn't raise kids, end of story."

gee, Termie is like our own little time machine!


I'd go with the legal benefits, such as wills, property, superannuation etc,

but not the recognition of being married.
why not? are heteros so insecure that the word "marriage" is the foundation of their relationships? will that one word determine whether or not they can love and commit to each other? are they so pathetic that they define their unions by what the neighbors do? if any of these are the case, then why should the rest of us care about such worthless and pitiable "marriages"?

Divorse has nothing to do with them being gay,
our society is a crumbling moralless piece of sh*t

fixing our society's perception of marriage is what we really need to do

ie not making it look worse then it is, makeing it look like a trap etc

Only in the sense that you are mimicking heterosexual values, such as
marriage and family, which dont really apply to you.

Wait...
Huh?
Why does marriage not apply to us again?
If one happens to be monogamous, I would say marriage certainly does apply.
And if one wishes to raise a child, I don't see how a child would be worse off if they've been adopted by homosexuals.

By the way, I do take a personal offense at the statement that those don't apply to me, but I'm not going to turn to flaming.

Anything natural is right, anything such as homosexual marriages
etc is wrong, and unnecessary.

Ah, so here we go to the 'natural' thing. I like this argument, the good trusty fallback one. Why again is it unnecessary that the State recognizes a union with another? If it is unnecessary, explain to me why it is necessary for hetero couples.

Well you should care, because alot of people are getting jack of the bullshit.

Yes, a lot of people are getting bullshit about this. Thing is, those people happen to be the homosexuals you are arguing against.

We dont have to explain anything, gays dont need to marry, and shouldnt
raise kids, end of story.

So you expose your central view. Nobody needs to explain it, it's only *obvious* that homosexuals are inferior. Listen, the exact same argument has been used in other situations, and the problem is that by its very definition it has no credibility.


I'd go with the legal benefits, such as wills, property, superannuation etc,
but not the recognition of being married.

Is it the word 'married' you're opposed to? In that case, give us a different word if you must. I don't see why the government shouldn't recognize us as bound together in marriage or handfasting or whatever you choose to call it. I will go so far as to say there is no logical statement that can be made refuting the point that government recognition of homosexuals being bound in a monogamous relationship is wrong.

Of course, this last paragraph was in assumption that you were actully trying to refute my last point, as you used the word 'married', and I never referred to marriage in the paragraph you responded to with that.. if you *are* talking about marriage, that's a Red Herring fallacy.

[QUOTE=Bottle]why not?

See the fifty posts Ive already given you with the same answer, go find them

yourself.


if "natural" is your definition of right, then all marriage is wrong and unnecessary. adoption is also wrong and unnecessary. medicine is wrong and unnecessary. cars are wrong and unnecessary. shall i go on?

Please dont, I'm reaching for the panadols already.


"we don't have to explain anything, blacks don't need to marry whites, and shouldn't raise kids, end of story."

You threw the blacks in, not me, try not to lie, I know its hard for you.


gee, Termie is like our own little time machine!

LOL if I was you would be on a one way trip to the Jurrassic period.


why not? are heteros so insecure that the word "marriage" is the foundation of their relationships? will that one word determine whether or not they can love and commit to each other? are they so pathetic that they define their unions by what the neighbors do? if any of these are the case, then why should the rest of us care about such worthless and pitiable "marriages"?


OMG your the only thing pathetic here, not to mention evil, strange you

would call heteros and their marriages weak and pitiful when your hetero

yourself, honestly vinegar tits, just dry up and blow away.

This is not really meant to be a flame at all but I can't, in good faith, let this observation just go away.

Terminalia, your entire arguement smells extremely strongly of what people in the past used when it came to racial rights and interracial marriages. The values you display as well as the wording you use all seem to point to it. I do hope that is not your attempt but I have to admit the "feeling" is still there...

See the fifty posts Ive already given you with the same answer, go find them
yourself.

You see, the problem is, in all fifty there hasn't been one line of backing logic.

You threw the blacks in, not me, try not to lie, I know its hard for you.
Was it mentioned that you said the thing about blacks? What was being pointed out is that the exact same arguments were used with the exact same unfounded logic against arican-americans.

OMG your the only thing pathetic here, not to mention evil, strange you
would call heteros and their marriages weak and pitiful when your hetero
yourself, honestly vinegar tits, just dry up and blow away.

Evil? Where'd that come in?
Also, I believe what was stated was this:

"are heteros so insecure that the word "marriage" is the foundation of their relationships? will that one word determine whether or not they can love and commit to each other? are they so pathetic that they define their unions by what the neighbors do? if any of these are the case, then why should the rest of us care about such worthless and pitiable "marriages"?"

Was it ever stated that her marriage/eventual marriage (err, I don't know if you're married or not Bottle) is/will be one of those? Not that I can see. There is nothing there saying "Heterosexual marriage is EEEVIL!" What I see there is that if 'marriage' is such a sacred word for reasons like that, it's not even sacred.

[QUOTE=Neo-Anarchists]Wait...
Huh?
Why does marriage not apply to us again?
If one happens to be monogamous, I would say marriage certainly does apply.
And if one wishes to raise a child, I don't see how a child would be worse off if they've been adopted by homosexuals.

They dont have a female role model, which is vital for their devlopement, and

a male one, if its two women.


By the way, I do take a personal offense at the statement that those don't apply to me, but I'm not going to turn to flaming.

How do you think you can take offence, its not for you, and never should be.

Ah, so here we go to the 'natural' thing. I like this argument, the good trusty fallback one. Why again is it unnecessary that the State recognizes a union with another? If it is unnecessary, explain to me why it is necessary for hetero couples.

Because your gay!

You negate any right to marriage, which would be nothing short of an

abomination if it was to another man, or woman if your female, you loose any

right to raise kids, because your gay.

Yes, a lot of people are getting bullshit about this. Thing is, those people happen to be the homosexuals you are arguing against.

Now your really making me sick, you guys have got some nerve, even

thinking you have a right to get angry.





So you expose your central view. Nobody needs to explain it, it's only *obvious* that homosexuals are inferior. Listen, the exact same argument has been used in other situations, and the problem is that by its very definition it has no credibility.

I dont think gays are inferior, you just dont have any right to marry or raise

kids, its not for you.

Stick to work and hobbies etc


Is it the word 'married' you're opposed to? In that case, give us a different word if you must.

You already have one, called partner.

This is not really meant to be a flame at all but I can't, in good faith, let this observation just go away.
Terminalia, your entire arguement smells extremely strongly of what people in the past used when it came to racial rights and interracial marriages. The values you display as well as the wording you use all seem to point to it. I do hope that is not your attempt but I have to admit the "feeling" is still there...

Sorry, but using this old chestnut doesnt make acceptance of gay marriages,

recognition of them in any sense mean something.

My values are fine.

Thanks for completely dismissing the post without ever commenting on anything I actually said in it. Do you deny that these aren't the exact same arguements? Yes, it DOES give recognition to them for society changed for the better by deciding this type of attitude towards someone based on BEING DIFFERENT FROM THE MAJORITY was unconstitutional.

Please at least attempt to make sensical, logical arguements instead of just saying "its unnatural" without proof or example. When things like that occur it leaves the realm of a debate and just turns into a flame war.

[QUOTE=Neo-Anarchists]You see, the problem is, in all fifty there hasn't been one line of backing logic.

You mean your kind of twisted logic, heteros have been getting hitched up

for time immoriendum, so gays should be then allowed to as well, yeah real

good logic.

Was it mentioned that you said the thing about blacks? What was being pointed out is that the exact same arguments were used with the exact same unfounded logic against arican-americans.

Bottle was throwing the old discriminating against Blacks in the past is the

same thing as discrimating against gays now, sorry but I dont buy that.

Evil? Where'd that come in?

Believe me, she is.


What I see there is that if 'marriage' is such a sacred word for reasons like that, it's not even sacred.

Well I dont really see that kind of reasoning as valid, marriage is for men to

women only, you guys dont need it.

Thanks for completely dismissing the post without ever commenting on anything I actually said in it. Do you deny that these aren't the exact same arguements? Yes, it DOES give recognition to them for society changed for the better by deciding this type of attitude towards someone based on BEING DIFFERENT FROM THE MAJORITY was unconstitutional.
Please at least attempt to make sensical, logical arguements instead of just saying "its unnatural" without proof or example. When things like that occur it leaves the realm of a debate and just turns into a flame war.

Well if you can give me one good logical reason for gays marrying without

falling back on your own tired arguements of discrimination, or they love each

other, I'll try to do the same Stabbatha.

They dont have a female role model, which is vital for their devlopement, and
a male one, if its two women.

Betcha the current crop of kids in gay families will grow up just fine...
Unfortunately, I have no evidence and jsut a gut feeling, so I probably shouldn't even mention it.

How do you think you can take offence, its not for you, and never should be.

I can take offence because I am being refused rights given to me in the Constitution, is how I can take offence.


Because your gay!
You negate any right to marriage, which would be nothing short of an
abomination if it was to another man, or woman if your female, you loose any
right to raise kids, because your gay.

Wait, I never signed some disclaimer that said "You forfeit basic human rights if you happen to like people of the same sex." This is rigged! I want out!

No, to be serious, your usage of 'abomination', and 'evil' and 'wrong' in other posts, is rather a problem, since there's the whole issue of universal morals not working...
Of course, you *could* just conveniently ignore that.

Now your really making me sick, you guys have got some nerve, even
thinking you have a right to get angry.

I thought you were the one going on about how you had a right to your opinion and stating it? I may be wrong, but anyway, why should 'we guys' not have a right to state our opinions if it makes you angry? You opinions make plenty of people angry too.

By the way, I do not appreciate the talking down to you just did. A rational discussion can do without that.

I dont think gays are inferior, you just dont have any right to marry or raise
kids, its not for you.

And that, kids, is what's called a 'contradiction'.

You already have one, called partner.

You see, if it were recognized as equal, I wouldn't have a problem with that, although I do know that it would make sense to. The problem here is that we aren't fully recognized as partners in any sort. Civil unions are a total sham.

[QUOTE]

You mean your kind of twisted logic, heteros have been getting hitched up

for time immoriendum, so gays should be then allowed to as well, yeah real

good logic.



Bottle was throwing the old discriminating against Blacks in the past is the

same thing as discrimating against gays now, sorry but I dont buy that.




Believe me, she is.




Well I dont really see that kind of reasoning as valid, marriage is for men to

women only, you guys dont need it.
Nor do you really

and
So because you don’t buy it makes the comparison untrue? Oh wow and here I have been seeing false ties all along … I mean your logic is beyond refutability [/sarcasm]

You mean your kind of twisted logic, heteros have been getting hitched up
for time immoriendum, so gays should be then allowed to as well, yeah real
good logic.

Where have I said that?
By the way, I'd like to see logical backup for your previous arguments, if that comment didn't make that obvious.

Bottle was throwing the old discriminating against Blacks in the past is the
same thing as discrimating against gays now, sorry but I dont buy that.

Hello?
Discrimination. Is. Discrimination.

Believe me, she is.

Well, first you'll have to provide a universal definition of evil.


Well I dont really see that kind of reasoning as valid, marriage is for men to
women only, you guys dont need it.

You have not refuted my point.

Scientific and child studies in countries where there is legalized homosexual marriage (or partial legality) show that homosexual parents neither increase or decrease their children's chance of being homosexual themselves, as well as the fact it also shows that there is no increase in domestic disputes among gay couples. Basically, the facts show that gay couples do just as good of a job as straight couples in similar situations.

Of course, you are just going to say that you think the polls are skewed or that you "don't buy that" when you confront a point you cannot argue as seems to be your pattern. Oh well, I think I'm done with this thread, I don't even care...I live in Canada, it's gonna be legalized up here anyways.

Well if you can give me one good logical reason for gays marrying without

falling back on your own tired arguements of discrimination, or they love each

other, I'll try to do the same Stabbatha.

I'd be happy to give you one good logical reason as long as you can do the same for your argument. Without falling back on your own tired arguments of marriage not being for gays, kids needing a female role model or homosexuality "just being wrong".

I'd be happy to give you one good logical reason as long as you can do the same for your argument. Without falling back on your own tired arguments of marriage not being for gays, kids needing a female role model or homosexuality "just being wrong".

You can only have so many reasons, and if people keep drawing you back to

the same old arguements, you have to repeat yourself, its what you believe

in, so theres nothing wrong with that, so I guess were both content.

[QUOTE=Neo-Anarchists]Betcha the current crop of kids in gay families will grow up just fine...
Unfortunately, I have no evidence and jsut a gut feeling, so I probably shouldn't even mention it.

I wouldnt count on that.


I can take offence because I am being refused rights given to me in the Constitution, is how I can take offence.

Yeah well, because times have changed, for the worst, the constitution may

have to be rewritten abit.

Wait, I never signed some disclaimer that said "You forfeit basic human rights if you happen to like people of the same sex." This is rigged! I want out!

This has nothing to do with basic human rights.


I thought you were the one going on about how you had a right to your opinion and stating it? I may be wrong, but anyway, why should 'we guys' not have a right to state our opinions if it makes you angry? You opinions make plenty of people angry too.

I never said, you couldnt state your opinion.


By the way, I do not appreciate the talking down to you just did. A rational discussion can do without that.

Sure, sorry.


And that, kids, is what's called a 'contradiction'.

No, its a disagreement.



You see, if it were recognized as equal, I wouldn't have a problem with that, although I do know that it would make sense to. The problem here is that we aren't fully recognized as partners in any sort. Civil unions are a total sham.

Yeah well, your gay.

Well, first you'll have to provide a universal definition of evil.


Lies.

Lies.
so that is a universal deffinition (universal being complete also) that means homosexuality aint on the list! nor any of the other "bad" things

Thanks for the list!

You can only have so many reasons, and if people keep drawing you back to

the same old arguements, you have to repeat yourself, its what you believe

in, so theres nothing wrong with that, so I guess were both content.

You are labouring under something of a misapprehension, Terminalia.

It is every persons RIGHT to believe what they believe in, but that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with it.

Some of Hitler's crack soldiers believed it was okay to smash babies brains out, if they were non-aryan... but they were (in the larger world view) wrong.

So - thought I might defend your RIGHT to say what you please, it doesn't mean that you are RIGHT in what you say.

This has nothing to do with basic human rights.


It has everything to do with basic human rights. If you are a human, you should have basic human rights. The only exception I can think of is criminals being refused the right to freedom and I know what your answer will be to that.

Because it isnt normal.

Why not and what does it matter?

What's going on in Mass. is a great example of a test for the rest of the nation. Its a great test to see if it will have a positive or negative effect on the nation. Right now it is failing, the results are showing that gay couples don't have the proper tools or know how to hold a marriage together.

It's not your fault though, nature didn't give you these tools, so don't feel bad. You just need to learn you can't defy nature and I'm hoping everyone learns that gay couples just can't handle marriage or civil unions for that matter. It's just too much for them.

There is no defying of nature at all with homosexuality, it is entirely natural, homosexuality is a natural inhibitor to stunt the population growth of a species. I guess "God" forgot to mention that in the Bible.

You just need to learn you can't defy nature[...]

Actually, defying nature is extremely easy. You can do it by turning on the kitchen light. Or getting dressed. Or sleeping in a nice, comfy bed. Or talking.

Defying nature is what's got us to where we are today.