NationStates Jolt Archive

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!


What part of 'go back to iran' dont you understand?

Yes it would have been so much easier to have a small boy witness two men fighting in public than showing affection, wouldn't it?

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

*laughs hysterically at the prudish intolerant retrograde mastodon*

If gayness is spread through kids imitating gay people than how did gay culture survive the homophobic years of 100,000 BC - 2005 AD?

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

first off - hooray for slippery slope!

Second - it might be good for the kid to open his mind. You don't see me yelling that Christians are a bad influence every time they start a war.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

its people like you that make me ashamed to be a human

If gayness is spread through kids imitating gay people than how did gay culture survive the homophobic years of 100,000 BC - 2005 AD?

If an extremely contagious virus kills people how did mankind survive the last 102,005 years?

If an extremely contagious virus kills people how did mankind survive the last 102,005 years?

I think you've got a contagious virus: petty narrowmindedness. Don't worry, though - there is a cure: earnest humility, in large doses.

If an extremely contagious virus kills people how did mankind survive the last 102,005 years?
mutation. . .duh. Seriously, do you think that seeing a gay person makes others gay. I can personally attest to the absurdity of that statement.

If an extremely contagious virus kills people how did mankind survive the last 102,005 years?

*Calls freinds over to laugh at you*

Drop the science argument dude, it won't work.

There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

Lemme rephrase for ya: in front of a line full of kids going to spend $20 to sit on the lap of some drunken hobo with a red suit on.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

Easy (and I am a dad): "Because they love each other, son. People who love each other sometimes kiss."

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

You're right. It would be better if they focussed solely on the drunken hobo in the red suit who has a "surprise" for them if they sneak out back.

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

I wasn't aware marriage was taught in school at all since marriage tends to be a religious or legal institution. Perhaps it is given passing mention in a high school civics class. Anyway, though, I can assure you that children are being taught in our public schools that the defintion of a family is "a group of people who love each other, take care of each other, and are devoted to each other". Guess what's not mentioned: gender, color, creed.

Next thing you know, though, the negroes will be stealing our fair white princesses and violatin' them with their poisonous seed!!

It must really, really, really suck to be you.

I'll be sure to make out and dry hump with some girl in front of the kids waiting for Santa at my local mall. Because we all know that that's socially acceptable.

Breeders will always breed, because it is their nature. The homosexual free from the burden of procreation and child rearing will always lead, in art, literature, politics , all the fields which require a focused will. this will is lost in the concerns of conventional family life. that is why i believe, inorder to save the aryan race from destruction, it must be lead by an elite cadre of dedicated homosexuals. thus i present The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual National Socialist Workingperson's Party.

Why is it I've noticed that if people don't like a behavoir, they automatically assume that it'll be a negative influence on every child who might see it? Oh, perhaps it's because they're silly, mostly illiterate, stereotypical idiots who have decided that if the world does not pander to them and be exactly like them with their close-minded views about everything, that any differences in the world, such as homosexuality, are the Devil's work, and should be banned immediately under the pretext that "it's for the good of the children".

That's right, silly me.

But tell me this: Were you in the other person's shoes - were homosexuality the norm, and HETEROSEXUALS couldn't display their affection in public, or marry, or do any of those things which people like you deny gays - would you not be incensed?

Something tells me - I think it's called common sense - that you would.

Next time you see something different to your norm, think of THAT. Put yourself where THEY are, and see how you'd like being on the other side of the glass.

Just something to think about.

Calenth

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

-.- im also against gay marraige.. and if thats the best argument u bring to the table.. take a step back.. far away from my side.. cause we need less people like you trying to explain whats wrong with it... Thats why our position is seen as intolerant hateful.. etc.

yours is the position of ignorance..

Breeders will always breed, because it is their nature. The homosexual free from the burden of procreation and child rearing will always lead, in art, literature, politics , all the fields which require a focused will. this will is lost in the concerns of conventional family life. that is why i believe, inorder to save the aryan race from destruction, it must be lead by an elite cadre of dedicated homosexuals. thus i present The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual National Socialist Workingperson's Party.
I think you will find that as far as the art etc is concenred your talking about left handers! Now if you want a minority group that has to put up with a world designed for others look no further!

I think you will find that as far as the art etc is concenred your talking about left handers! Now if you want a minority group that has to put up with a world designed for others look no further!

oh come on, everyone knows left handed is just code for gay.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

Only possible problem here is a possible breach of etiquette if it was too intimate of a DPA. If it was a simple peck, no problem.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

Easy. Give an age appropriate explanation, maybe something like: "some men kiss women and some men kiss men." (Or just like Keruvalia did.)

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

Nope, they most likely won't. But so what if they do?

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

They already do.

If an extremely contagious virus kills people how did mankind survive the last 102,005 years?
But what does that have to do with anything?

oh come on, everyone knows left handed is just code for gay.


LOL

I'd heard those lefties were all 'sinister'...you know, Satanic...! Hellspawns, every one...!

LMS

LOL

I'd heard those lefties were all 'sinister'...you know, Satanic...! Hellspawns, every one...!

LMS
See what I mean. Sinister, dexterous, dexterity etc.. oppresive right handers! ;)

This subject is a powder keg any way you shoot at it. I don't think gays are a bad influence, but honestly I'd try to steer my kids as far away from that subject as possible. The talk about sex has been a tough subject for many fathers; and mothers in some cases. Now they have to have a talk about not just sex, but sexuality.

Honestly I'll try my damndest in hopes my kids aren't gay, but if they are, they are. I won't disown them or anything and I'll still love them. Damn I sound Selfish.

I await the flames for my two cents on this subject.

No I see where you are coming from. And can't blame you or attack your view. We were brought up a certain way with certain values, some of those we have changed a little others it takes time for us to accept. Those who would force you to change your beliefs quicker even when your behaviours have changed are the ones that deserve to be verbally attacked.

This subject is a powder keg any way you shoot at it. I don't think gays are a bad influence, but honestly I'd try to steer my kids as far away from that subject as possible. The talk about sex has been a tough subject for many fathers; and mothers in some cases. Now they have to have a talk about not just sex, but sexuality.

Honestly I'll try my damndest in hopes my kids aren't gay, but if they are, they are. I won't disown them or anything and I'll still love them. Damn I sound Selfish.

I await the flames for my two cents on this subject.

Alright, this guy said it alot better then me. I want to steer my kids away from this, it's hard enough as it is with violence and sex every where ( such as TV ).

You have to be careful what you expose kids to, It's great for them to be open minded, but you have to slowly open up their minds to their world, if you do it too fast they will be hurt.

How can I protect my kids from this though, if they are forced to teach it in schools?

Alright, this guy said it alot better then me. I want to steer my kids away from this, it's hard enough as it is with violence and sex every where ( such as TV ).

You have to be careful what you expose kids to, It's great for them to be open minded, but you have to slowly open up their minds to their world, if you do it too fast they will be hurt.

How can I protect my kids from this though, if they are forced to teach it in schools?

Where do they...Who the hell...Where are you from that they teach this in school?

-.- im also against gay marraige.. and if thats the best argument u bring to the table.. take a step back.. far away from my side.. cause we need less people like you trying to explain whats wrong with it... Thats why our position is seen as intolerant hateful.. etc.

yours is the position of ignorance..


And what, may i ask, is your position againt gay marriage?

Alright, this guy said it alot better then me. I want to steer my kids away from this, it's hard enough as it is with violence and sex every where ( such as TV ).

You have to be careful what you expose kids to, It's great for them to be open minded, but you have to slowly open up their minds to their world, if you do it too fast they will be hurt.

How can I protect my kids from this though, if they are forced to teach it in schools?

Would you rather they heard it from you, or from Miss Smith at localtown elementary?

I can understand your reluctance about exposing your kids to the world, but if you don't tell them, they'll find out the hard way.

Part of having kids is watching them grow up and grow away; sometimes you have to do really difficult things.

Where do they...Who the hell...Where are you from that they teach this in school?

Think about it bud. If you make marriage legal in the the U.S., make a constitutional right or whatever for anyone to marry anyone.

People are going to get pissed and offended if their constitutional right isn't taught in school - the right to be gay and marry. They will be forced in schools to not only bring up subjects such as straight sex in the classroom, but also gay sex.

I believe if it was fully legal to have gay marriages, they should have to teach that if they teach stuff about straight marriages and sex...

What your saying is like "Sure, we made the black free, but lets not teach that in our schools!"

As a homosexual, I can say I did NOT copy somoene to become this way. Actually, it is an attempt on my behalf to find happiness in this world. The problem is not kissing, rather the world trying to hide an abvoius truth from everyone. Kids from an early age learn that its okay for men to kiss women. But are never told that some men kiss men. Of course the child is going to ask why they did that. Society has been trying to had something, something that cant remain hidden. Eventually children will see a man kiss another man in public and go "okay, but i like girls."
Homosexuality is not spread like a disease, illness, or bacteria. Rather its something that a person goes through, whether by choice or not, its something an individual experiences on their own.
Schools will never teach homosexuality, and they do not now. In Texas, where I live, they dont even teach sexuality whatsoever. In states that teach heterosexuality, they will stay that way. The point of those classes are to show how babies are made and born and the possible diseases spread through sex. There would need to be no different lessons, because a homosexual would learn anyways, and apply it to thier life. So never fear, you thread-maker, they will never teach it in school.
I personally feel very sorry for you, person who made this thread. You have been taught not to accept differences. This will be a great problem for you in life, especially because the rest of the world is learning to accept. Please, reconsider this, and realize that homosexuals are just people who find love in different ways than you. Thats it.

Your kids will just find out from the dodgy kids at school anyway. Wouldn't you rather teach them properly?

I'd join the fun, but my indignation has been somewhat mollified by the sheer volume of flamage bigots generally recieve on this forum.
Keep on :fluffle: ing

Where do they...Who the hell...Where are you from that they teach this in school?

The Michael Jackson School For Gifted Future Sex-Offenders (read a brochure for them once, when will someone gun that guy down?)

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

So ? I'd rather have my kids experiment to discover what their sexuality is at a young age, then to find it out after they got married and had their first kid.
The thing I'm worried about is that I will also need to explain religion to them when they reach puberty - which I consider way too young[1]. But since many religions consider love a sin[2] they will have a right to know - assuming they will wish to choose a religion.

[1] Expecting a kid to understand a concept as complex as G-d, that there are many people who don't believe and that there are many who believe in a different way while none of them is inferior... is unrealistic IMO. Especially considering many 'grown-ups' don't seem to be able either.
[2] Which makes me wonder.. if we exterminate all religions, will we have a world filled with love instead of hate ?

....why....why why....don't threads like this get closed? This is a troll thread. It's a big fat troll thread. Why is it allowed to live?

Oh, that's easy:
- Trolls are people too.
- Thou shalt not kill
- Love thy fellow man, even if he's a troll

Anyone care to continue ;-) ?

Shamelessly bashing somebody who is unprepared for a battle of wits is a calming experience for educated folk.

No, this must stop!!!! Next thing you know is, the teach you tolerance towards trolls at school! And then troll sex! Think of the kids!

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

Go back to the stone age NARK.

I think I read somewhere that being gay is actually a genetic trait.

....why....why why....don't threads like this get closed? This is a troll thread. It's a big fat troll thread. Why is it allowed to live?

It was actually a good thread around the beginning. It's dead now,heh.

Alright, this guy said it alot better then me. I want to steer my kids away from this, it's hard enough as it is with violence and sex every where ( such as TV ).

You have to be careful what you expose kids to, It's great for them to be open minded, but you have to slowly open up their minds to their world, if you do it too fast they will be hurt.

How can I protect my kids from this though, if they are forced to teach it in schools?
Oh don't try and bullshit yoru way out of this. He didn't just 'say it better' than you, he thought it, unlike you cause your a homophobic ****.

And by the way you never explained why we're a negative influence...it's cause we kiss right!

I think I read somewhere that being gay is actually a genetic trait.

There's evidence toward this belief, but there's also evidence against it. The truth is there's no gene that says hey I'm gay. It just happens, the gay gene was a hope for some scientific fools who wanted to find a way to ex out homosexuality. Problem is, it's been around a lot longer than people think, so even if it was genetic almost everyone has this gene anyway.

They will be forced in schools to not only bring up subjects such as straight sex in the classroom, but also gay sex.




i think all kinds of sex should be banned in the classroom. its innapropriate.

if you wanna fuck teacher at least have the decency to do it behind the bins. better still, kidnap her and do it at home.

gay sex doesn't need to be taught in order to explain gay marriage. love is all that needs be taught for a child to understand that.

in britain our teachers can't explain what gayness is in high school. I used to have so much fun asking the science teachers what a 'bugger' was.

You know, I have read my bible, and I have my share of sins. I read how god destroyed the sodimites. but, the way I see it is, let trhem get married, I mean some people don't eat meat, but that doesn't mean that I want to force them to partake of a cow. and My aunt who is vegitarian doesn't mind if I eat meat. I don't mind if she likes only salad. Even though I personaly don't approve of gay encounters, :fluffle: but I beleive that even if it is a sin there should be choice, Porn is wrong, but I would rather have the choice to go out and buy a playboy or choose not to, if it is legal people sould choose, as for the teaching, well :sniper: I dunno, I have mixed feelings on this. I beleive it should not be taught at an early age, but later like high school, late Junior high.

Precisely. Two gay people kissing really isn't anything to be up in arms about - and statistics show that gay relationships suffer less domestic violence, are more stable, and more loving. I've never heard a satisfactory arguement against gay and/or lesbian relationships.

i think all kinds of sex should be banned in the classroom. its innapropriate.

if you wanna fuck teacher at least have the decency to do it behind the bins. better still, kidnap her and do it at home.

gay sex doesn't need to be taught in order to explain gay marriage. love is all that needs be taught for a child to understand that.

in britain our teachers can't explain what gayness is in high school. I used to have so much fun asking the science teachers what a 'bugger' was.

OUr teachers talk about homosexuality all the time and openly humiliate and laugh at sad homophobic people just as we would a racsist person. If someone makes a rude gesture towards homosexuality they generally get sent to the principal to explain themselves. It's rather liberating and I think shows some general improvement in the position of Australia and education.

What part of 'go back to iran' dont you understand?

Haha. Nice.

Haha. Nice.

yes, lovely to see tolerance breeding tolerance :rolleyes:

OUr teachers talk about homosexuality all the time and openly humiliate and laugh at sad homophobic people just as we would a racsist person. If someone makes a rude gesture towards homosexuality they generally get sent to the principal to explain themselves. It's rather liberating and I think shows some general improvement in the position of Australia and education.

Part of me feels compelled to argue that things like that are against free speech... on the other hand, free speech also means being mocked by peers and "superiors" (same rights but higher status) for idiotic and archaic backwards beliefs...

I dunno. Who am I kidding? I'd rather see people like that lined up and shot. :p

yes, lovely to see tolerance breeding tolerance :rolleyes:

Lovely to see Muslim and Christian extremists breeding like parasites with no respect for nature, humanity, social progression, their own purported religions, or the advancement of civilization.

Quote:

What part of 'go back to iran' dont you understand?

Could we also send Bush please :) But without the marines :)

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Precisely. Two gay people kissing really isn't anything to be up in arms about - and statistics show that gay relationships suffer less domestic violence, are more stable, and more loving. I've never heard a satisfactory arguement against gay and/or lesbian relationships.

Usually you can't trust statistics, but that one has been very true in my experience. The joke is that once they do get married they'll be going through the same hells straight marriages go through.

Alright this is my last post, g'night and keep on truckin' and postin',heh.

Quote:

What part of 'go back to iran' dont you understand?

Could we also send Bush please :) But without the marines :)

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

good plan. anyone else reckon that the best way to settle a war is a duel with swords between the two leaders of the would be warring nations? the pen obviously is not mightier than thor we wouldn't have so many swords. however if we're going to use swords, surely the guy who decides we use the sword should use it first

[QUOTE=Keruvalia]Easy (and I am a dad): "Because they love each other, son. People who love each other sometimes kiss."QUOTE]

Good answer!

Would you (the original post person) explain to them why their parents kiss by going into detail about sex?... most likely not.

Yes, they have a bit of this explained in US sex ed. classes, if they are lucky enough to go to a liberal school, but not necassarily.

To badly paraphrase a good t-shirt slogan,
"Let's protect the sanctity of reality tv show marriage while we accuse gay marriage of being detrimental to the society."

*edits to correct tired typing that made words not make sense before.

What part of 'go back to iran' dont you understand?


If people like me weren't around, America would be called "France".

If people like me weren't around, America would be called "France".

And that would be an improvement to our (currently ruined) country.

good plan. anyone else reckon that the best way to settle a war is a duel with swords between the two leaders of the would be warring nations? the pen obviously is not mightier than thor we wouldn't have so many swords. however if we're going to use swords, surely the guy who decides we use the sword should use it first

Well of course, but also all the idiots who are willing to fight for him. That's the best way to curb the population (of pugnacious troglodytes).

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!
its people like you that make me ashamed to be a human

Exactly. And i'd be willing to bet MONEY that Amall Madnar is just fine with 2 grown men going at each other on network television, {boxing, wrestling, any type of fights} promoting violence to young citizens.

And that would be an improvement to our (currently ruined) country.


Yeah, since France is such a great country and all, since most their goverment is corrupt, they are completely fine if a foreign country should choose to come invade them, and they think they are too good to repay their debts to their allies.

Yeah, since France is such a great country and all, since most their goverment is corrupt, they are completely fine if a foreign country should choose to come invade them, and they think they are too good to repay their debts to their allies.

1. All governments are corrupt, especially (more so) ours
2. Oh no, look! Hitler! omfg11!!... er... I mean Bush
3. The debts have been payed, and the US owes other counties more

However, the French have stricter ideals as per free speech, the still have traces of anti-semetism, and they're still... well, French.

Nevertheless, an evangelical cokehead is running our country. Our environment, civil liberties, education, budget, jobs, foreign allegiances, and economy are in shambles... not to mention the fact that we're overrun by religious fanatics.

Yeah, since France is such a great country and all, since most their goverment is corrupt, they are completely fine if a foreign country should choose to come invade them, and they think they are too good to repay their debts to their allies.

So, you're not just a poor homophobe, you're a poor xenophobe as well?

You truly are an embarrassment to yourself.

Yeah, since France is such a great country and all, since most their goverment is corrupt, they are completely fine if a foreign country should choose to come invade them, and they think they are too good to repay their debts to their allies.

Going by your posts in other threads, you are obviously making a comparison to the US. So, do you seriously believe that:

- The US government is not corrupt?

- The US government is not a net debtor to the rest of the world?

- Military might is what defines a "great" country?

- The US has not gotten more than their money back from their post-WWII investment in Europe?

and that he or she will be vengeful beyond comprehension towards the likes of people like Amall Madnar. Amar: I hope you wil burn in hell eternally for your hatefulness!

...{wrestling}...

Ugg. Now that's some gay sex I can't stand. Sweaty bleeding men tussling about wearing nothing but short shorts, biting and pulling and grabbing, hugging and squeezing each other for long periods of time...

...but they're straight (usually)!!



I'd choose some cute guys making out or fucking any day.
Hell, I'll do it now.

@Amall Madnar: Who died and made you an expert on France? Congratulations, you win the "Most obvious ignorance" prize for today, for pressing so much bullshit in such few words.

and that he or she will be vengeful beyond comprehension towards the likes of people like Amall Madnar. Amar: I hope you wil burn in hell eternally for your hatefulness!

That's cute. Showing that Christian love.

Humans are inherently selfish and "evil". Relish it.

Yeah, since France is such a great country and all, since most their goverment is corrupt, they are completely fine if a foreign country should choose to come invade them, and they think they are too good to repay their debts to their allies.


Blah blah blah, when you try to make a point, try using some facts to back them, or at least some sort of ideas, theology, something to show any sort of intelegence. Any person can slap some words up, dot a couple eyes, and try to sound intellegent, but if you only use simple words, you don't get the point across.

So you don't like homosexuals kissing in public in front of kids, did you happen to look around and see any, say, victoria secret stores nearby, where women pose in thier panites so that they can get bigger paychecks, or did you see any teens smoking outside that were obviously underage? If you don't like them kissing, I've got a hint for you, look the other way. Kids are going to be exposed to homosexuals, violence, sex for sale, drugs, drinking, and smoking and all sorts of other things, but its not up to you to police the grounds to make sure that you don't get offended. That just tosses you in with the rest of the extremists that try to censor everything that could/does offend someone or could in the future. If you take out all the extremes you get boring old pudding.

Grow up.

Blah blah blah, when you try to make a point, try using some facts to back them, or at least some sort of ideas, theology, something to show any sort of intelegence. Any person can slap some words up, dot a couple eyes, and try to sound intellegent, but if you only use simple words, you don't get the point across.

So you don't like homosexuals kissing in public in front of kids, did you happen to look around and see any, say, victoria secret stores nearby, where women pose in thier panites so that they can get bigger paychecks, or did you see any teens smoking outside that were obviously underage? If you don't like them kissing, I've got a hint for you, look the other way. Kids are going to be exposed to homosexuals, violence, sex for sale, drugs, drinking, and smoking and all sorts of other things, but its not up to you to police the grounds to make sure that you don't get offended. That just tosses you in with the rest of the extremists that try to censor everything that could/does offend someone or could in the future. If you take out all the extremes you get boring old pudding.

Grow up.

Indeed. Short of packing our kids in styrofoam(which could be fun), there's no way we can 'protect' them from all behavior we don't approve of. For instance, I did my best to get intolerant arrogant ethnocentric self-important twits banned from public, but apparently, a lot of them are in government. :(

Blah blah blah, when you try to make a point, try using some facts to back them, or at least some sort of ideas, theology, something to show any sort of intelegence.

[1] Any person can slap some words up, dot a couple eyes, and try to sound intellegent, but if you only use simple words, you don't get the point across.

So you don't like homosexuals kissing in public in front of kids,

[2] did you happen to look around and see any, say, victoria secret stores nearby, where women pose in thier panites so that they can get bigger paychecks,

or did you see any teens smoking outside that were obviously underage? If you don't like them kissing, I've got a hint for you, look the other way. Kids are going to be exposed to homosexuals, violence, sex for sale, drugs, drinking, and smoking and all sorts of other things, but its not up to you to police the grounds to make sure that you don't get offended. That just tosses you in with the rest of the extremists that try to censor everything that could/does offend someone or could in the future. If you take out all the extremes you get boring old pudding.

Grow up.

[1] 'never use a long word where a short one will do' - george orwell. complex language and complex argument are very different. learn the difference

[2] try selling knickers without putting them on display.

otherwise. good point - you for president

[2] try selling knickers without putting them on display.




wow

Next thing you know, though, the negroes will be stealing our fair white princesses and violatin' them with their poisonous seed!!

It must really, really, really suck to be you.

OMGz bring on the negroes! I need violatin! And can you make them muslim gay negroes please? Oh say you will... Okay maybe bisexual...

Oh honestly, what's WRONG with people that a freaking KISS will make them so damned angry? It's not like Charles was bending Bob over and spanking his naked bottom in front of an audience of kids waiting to see Santa... though by the time those kids hit breeding age they'll have seen and heard much worse.

I agree with Keruvalia. It must REALLY suck to be you. Leave the nice, happy, loving gay men alone, kid.

...It's not like Charles was bending Bob over and spanking his naked bottom in front of an audience of kids waiting to see Santa...

That's kinky.

[1] 'never use a long word where a short one will do' - george orwell. complex language and complex argument are very different. learn the difference

[2] try selling knickers without putting them on display.

otherwise. good point - you for president


[1] I meant to make one sound intellegent, though I suppose I should have explained myself better, I was rushing a bit. Trying to express that a simplemans thoughts being put out as intellegent though while using simpleman's understanding of words, still ends up showing the lacking of intellegence.
[2] You can put knickers on display without putting up large cardboard cutouts of women dress in them, using displays, that most stores use. Just like when I sold chainmail at my retail store I didn't have to wear it all the time, I hung it up.

And for the president thing, I can't run. I am neither a compulsive liar nor born from wealth with rich daddies/friends to budget my campaine. That and I'm afraid I'd be assassinated by other politictions, for calling them all a bunch of overpaid pompess twits. ^_^

wow


I think you made him think impure thoughts, now he is going to start ranting about keeping these forums clean so that young kids don't get the wrong ideas and start using their brains.

[1] I meant to make one sound intellegent, though I suppose I should have explained myself better, I was rushing a bit. Trying to express that a simplemans thoughts being put out as intellegent though while using simpleman's understanding of words, still ends up showing the lacking of intellegence.
[2] You can put knickers on display without putting up large cardboard cutouts of women dress in them, using displays, that most stores use. Just like when I sold chainmail at my retail store I didn't have to wear it all the time, I hung it up.

And for the president thing, I can't run. I am neither a compulsive liar nor born from wealth with rich daddies/friends to budget my campaine. That and I'm afraid I'd be assassinated by other politictions, for calling them all a bunch of overpaid pompess twits. ^_^


[1] i know i was just trying to rile you up a bit :)

[2] you didn't even have a dummy to show what it looks like standing up?

run anyway. could you do worse than john kerry?

[1] i know i was just trying to rile you up a bit :)

[2] you didn't even have a dummy to show what it looks like standing up?

run anyway. could you do worse than john kerry?

Nope, no way can make themselves look any more like a French President.

[1] i know i was just trying to rile you up a bit :)

[2] you didn't even have a dummy to show what it looks like standing up?

run anyway. could you do worse than john kerry?

I would like to make a stance about running, but I can't tell you what it is.;)

And that part about not haveing a dummy to show what it looks like, I did, its called my business partner, or me when I wore it, lol.

Nope, no way can make themselves look any more like a French President.

That didn't make sense on soooo many levels. :confused:

I would like to make a stance about running, but I can't tell you what it is.;)

And that part about not haveing a dummy to show what it looks like, I did, its called my business partner, or me when I wore it, lol.

yeah. but if you sold knickers and bras would you not have done the same? i can only imagine the horror of wearing chainmail. what kind of shop do you run?

If people like me weren't around, America would be called "France".

Did anyone else notice how this is the incorrect stupid statement? France has never had overt aggressive tendencies towards the US. The correct ignorant statement would have been, "If people like me weren't around, America would be called 'Germany'."

RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.
... next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

I've always thought Santa is gay. Taught my kids so anyway. Jingling his bells and all ...

And about the father having to explain why these guys kiss: I suppose they're in love. :fluffle:

yeah. but if you sold knickers and bras would you not have done the same? i can only imagine the horror of wearing chainmail. what kind of shop do you run?

I ran a shop that focused around medival wares and ren faires. We sold clothing, armor, swords, etc.

We also taught sword fighting and armor making, as well as doing heraldry and such. But then my business partner got into my personal life and got pissed about it, and bought me out. The store is now closed down because he couldn't keep it going. I plan on reopening a store of my own again.

asking the science teachers what a 'bugger' was.
http://www.serbianna.com/features/entry_of_slavs/bosnia.shtml

Hi, I'm new here...

I haven't laughed this hard in years. This thread is amazing, and I feel compelled to comment on it, although there's not much that hasn't already been said.

First of all, our friend Amall Madnar should probably just stop posting, period. Every single word he writes he digs himself deeper into the little homophobic hole he's dug for himself.
For instance:

Nope, no way can make themselves look any more like a French President.

Touche my friend... Touche...


Also, I'm from Iceland, and when I was in high school, about 10 years ago, I was taught about gay sex and gay relationships (even though gay marriage was still illegal then (legal now)) in school, and I can honestly say that I'm a pretty stable and sane person. I am straight (not implying that gay people are insane (well, I'm sure that some of them are), but that learning about homosexuality did not CONVERT me to it. On the contrary I'm positive that this helped me grow into the open-minded intelligent guy that I am now (not to mention cocky!)

Cheers!

well, this thread amused me much, but alas I am off to the land known to all, the land of sleep. I hope that my words have brought the amusement and thought that they brought me, and once more I'd like to say, Bow to the Squarill, bringer of the heavenly nutt.

http://www.serbianna.com/features/entry_of_slavs/bosnia.shtml
cool thanks you.

slinao, your shop sounds the bollocks. safe as. is there much trade in medievil wares?

*Calls freinds over to laugh at you*

Drop the science argument dude, it won't work.

Heres a little tip - learn to spell friends

" I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?" "

Because "daddy" was gay also?

Heres a little tip - learn to spell friends

While we're being sarcastic grammar Nazis, go look up the uses of the apostrophe.

Did anyone else notice how this is the incorrect stupid statement? France has never had overt aggressive tendencies towards the US. The correct ignorant statement would have been, "If people like me weren't around, America would be called 'Germany'."


.....or possibly The Soviet Republic of Ameristan. I wonder how much this anti-Gallic sentiment is driven by the lower grade elements of the media? For example, even in the UK (where Anglo-French rivalry down the centuries has left a certain residual feeling in some quarters) they're quite taken aback at the current and distinct lack of amour in the US for our French friends. Ease up on the frog-bashing, I say, or we could end up "Freedom-Kissing" someone at the local nightclub!!!!!

Will people never learn? :rolleyes:

Surely everyone in the world knows that comments like that create flame-o-rama, and only too rightly!!

It's shocking that even today, in the 21st century, that there are prejudiced, bigoted people like you still around.

:gundge: boo you :mad:

Love shouldnt be barred to hetrosexual couples only...

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

"Well, son, there are men who like other men in the way that your mommy and daddy like each other. They will often kiss and hug the way Mommy and Daddy kiss and hug, because they love each other and they like being nice to each other."

there, was that so hard?


And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

sort of like how all kids instantly start having sex because they see their mom hug their dad? or how all kids instantly start making out when they see two heteros hug in public? newsflash: fear of cooties keeps them celebate until puberty.


If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!
just like how we teach kids how to be heterosexual? um, what school do you go to?

we already should be teaching kids that homosexuality exists, because it does...what do you want to do, just not tell kids about it and let them learn from TV and movies? should we simply not inform kids about all the things that make us uncomfortable, in the hopes that if they don't hear it from us they won't ever encounter it? if you are anti-gay, shouldn't you be pushing to educate kids about homosexuality, so that they will be better prepared to deal with it when they encounter it?

If gayness is spread through kids imitating gay people than how did gay culture survive the homophobic years of 100,000 BC - 2005 AD?

at what time did homophobia go away?

at what time did homophobia go away?
It hasn't which is why they quoted next year.

There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!
I don't think that there's anything wrong with kids seeing two men holding hands, any more than it is to see a man and a woman doing the same.

Kids don't copy what they see. Sexual orientation is a choice that nobody has.

I don't see how this probelm could be solved by banning gay marriage. Non-married gay couples will still hold hands in public. What you want is a ban on homosexuality, but that is totalitarian.

-.- im also against gay marraige.. and if thats the best argument u bring to the table.. take a step back.. far away from my side.. cause we need less people like you trying to explain whats wrong with it... Thats why our position is seen as intolerant hateful.. etc.

yours is the position of ignorance..
Let me guess, your reason is the cop-out "the government should stay out of marriage"?

He is ignorant, intolerant, etc, but his reasons are the same reasons that the majority of the anti-gay marriage crowd hold.

Let me guess, your reason is the cop-out "the government should stay out of marriage"?
That's a perfectly good reason. The government should stay out of marriage. That is, the government should not recognize heterosexual marriages, either. And if the government chooses to implement a legal equivalent of marriage, then it should make no restrictions based on sexuality.

GAYNESS IS WRONG. god said so so fuck you if you don't agree. cos you will burn in hell forever and me and my fellow gay hating christ loving jew despising family worshipping cock fearing happy clapping chums will sit on god's right hand. i love the feel of his fingers. oh yes

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

You're too much, you explain it the same way as if a man and a woman were kissing. Don't forget I'm sure there were lots of people with your attitude 20 years ago when people said that about a black man and a white woman kissing.. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! :rolleyes:

If you really want to think of the children, speaking as a mother myself, you will teach them tolerance and acceptance that not every one is the same, nor should they be, yet just as equal as every one else.

I don't think you have to worry about the kids becoming gay unless they were going to any way. People don't choose to be gay and if you believe that, I'd like you to tell me when it was you decided to become straight?

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?
Hopefully, you'll never be in such a position to have to explain said behaviour...

Of course there is negative influence of homosexuality on society.
I saw a very interesting documentary and discussion on Arte on Monday.
It was about the a study of the effects of homosexual "parents" on children.
The children living under a gay or lesbian couple were asked DIRETLY. That was very important to give the children a voice directly. Too children clearly said, that they were part of an experiment, one even said that all studies claiming that there is no effect of same-sex parents were manipulated for the reason of political correctness.
It became clear through this very interesting documentary that the claims of the gay-activists are wrong.
The children are suffering from different effects. The missing mother or father is a problem.
And this hole can´t be filled by a member of the different sex.
The argument that it can be filled by friends of the family is void because it is missing the role of the father or mother which is not that of an "uncle" or "aunt".
Also the children tend to grow up in a more steril environment in which the other sex is missing within this "family".
Interestingly the girl of a lesbian couple was able to play with Baby toys although her lesbian "mothers" didn´t want it (they were against this "female role-model").
But obviously human nature has certain charateristics which can´t be barred.
None the less, life is much more difficult for such children especially if they have to fight to life a normal (traditional) life although their "parents" present them another role-model.
Noone should forget that parents are the first role-model children get. It is of utmost importance to present a good role-model. And undoubtably the role-model of any society is a heterosexual relationship.
Many of the children said that they are part of an "experiment" (homosexuals as parents).
The question is whether we should allow such human experiments.
At least more study should be done to determine the long-term effects in the cases which have already happened and are currently happening.
Up until this is done it is - to say the least - irresponsible to push more children in such a situation.
Therefore homosexuals should remain barred from the option of adoption.

Why is it I've noticed that if people don't like a behavoir, they automatically assume that it'll be a negative influence on every child who might see it? Oh, perhaps it's because they're silly, mostly illiterate, stereotypical idiots who have decided that if the world does not pander to them and be exactly like them with their close-minded views about everything, that any differences in the world, such as homosexuality, are the Devil's work, and should be banned immediately under the pretext that "it's for the good of the children".

That's right, silly me.

But tell me this: Were you in the other person's shoes - were homosexuality the norm, and HETEROSEXUALS couldn't display their affection in public, or marry, or do any of those things which people like you deny gays - would you not be incensed?

Something tells me - I think it's called common sense - that you would.

Next time you see something different to your norm, think of THAT. Put yourself where THEY are, and see how you'd like being on the other side of the glass.

Just something to think about.

Calenth


Hear hear! The voice of sanity.

oh come on, everyone knows left handed is just code for gay.

Hey, in case noone has put you in line yet, my dad is left handed, and hes homophobic! Left handers are left handers, and are people, as are gays, as are people of every race and creed. Wake up and smell the civil rights.

Interestingly the girl of a lesbian couple was able to play with Baby toys although her lesbian "mothers" didn´t want it (they were against this "female role-model").
But obviously human nature has certain charateristics which can´t be barred.
How can you sure it's not just societal pressure that's making her want to play with dolls? If all her friends are playing wit dools, and whenever she goes to a toy store sees nothing but dolls in the girls section, it's probably going to make her think that those are the toys she is to play with.
But I guess in your narrow view world, this wouldn't occur to you.

I saw another study where babies were dressed up as boys or girls and then had an adult look after them. Adults in nigh on all cases would give dolls to the 'girl' to play with and vehicles and building blocks for the 'boy' to play with. Half the time the sex of the baby was the opposite of how s/he was dressed.
Conclusion? Adults have far more influence in determing what a child plays with than they might realise.

Also, toy shops have a huge influence over what a child plays with than you probably realise. For example, In the paper the other day it said that Care Bears are in the girls section of Toy shops, because it was decided that girls are more likely to want one. THis however becomes self-fulfilling, as boys aren't likely to go into the girls section, nor are their parents be too willingly to buy a 'girls' toy for a boy. Also think how the boy will be treated amongst his boys if they find out that he got a 'girl's' toy for Xmas? So in the end, only girls get Care Bears, thus 'proving' the shop's decision to put them in the girls section.

You go out from the conclusion that women and men are the same. They are not. There are differences between women and men.
It is a big mistake by the 1968 generation especially to deny that.
Those difference lay in human nature.
Mother instincts are different from "father" instincts.
It is the women that is getting the children. Due to that fact there is a special bound between them and the child.
Biology can not be ignored in the name of political correctness.
By saying so I don´ t say at all either sex is better or worse than the other. But there are differences.
Why is it that girls are more good at languages then boys for example?
And boys on average more good at technical things?
That hasn´t changed although of all efforts.
And why are more women working in the social sector (education, health care, e.g.) than men and more men working in the construction industry than women?
That is - as a matter of fact - not changing although of the emancipation.
On the conterary. The effect of it is that certain segments become even more dominated by women then they were before (education).
Studies of brain scientists show differences in the brain structure which can explain the - on average - different talents and qualifications.
And those facts have to be taken into account.
It is just plainly wrong in the name of political correctness to pretend everything is the same, which it isn´t.
The ideal is a heterosexual family.
A homosexual couple is not able to give in this gender-specific fields the same as a heterosexual couple can.
Also it is natural for a child to ask - where is the mother or where is the father.
What are those people giving as answer? He is your mother? She is your father?
And that is what children in such a situation themself said: We are part of an experiment.
An experiment of the political correctness.

Just wanted to applaud all of the articulate and open minded people who responded to this posting! Seeing such tolerance and acceptance gives me hope for the future! AND, most importantly, I'm so moved by how many people took the risk of standing up for others by protesting predjudice! Bravo for being brave enough to stand up for what is right!! ok, I'm going to go and ooze sniffling sentimentality into my coffee mug for a while.

Just wanted to applaud all of the articulate and open minded people who responded to this posting! Seeing such tolerance and acceptance gives me hope for the future! AND, most importantly, I'm so moved by how many people took the risk of standing up for others by protesting predjudice! Bravo for being brave enough to stand up for what is right!! ok, I'm going to go and ooze sniffling sentimentality into my coffee mug for a while.

Don't get your hopes up.

There's a big difference between people who will gladly appear open minded on the Internet, or even say that they are tolerant (in front of friends or co-workers). But they will vote quite another way (which is what I think happened in the last election), and act quite another way. It's socially acceptable (and easier) to be a stealth bigot.

i dont want anyone making out in public, gay straight alien or otherwise

i dont want anyone making out in public, gay straight alien or otherwise

I've never understood the whole 'no public display of affection' taboo. I notice it seems much stronger in non-urban areas than anywhere else. Public displays of affection - hugging, kissing, playful groping - are good things, not bad. They remind us of our own loved ones, or inspire us to similar gentle acts of loving, in public or in private.

'Making out' is obviously a subjective term. A kiss does not equal a blowjob. A hug is not interchangeable with penetrative sex. The two lovers in question were seen to be kissing, not greasing each other's loins.

I ask you Chess Squares - why do public displays of affection elicit this particular response from you?

If people like me weren't around, America would be called "France".
I don't understand why Americans imagine France to be some sort of liberal's paradise. It really is not.

I've never understood the whole 'no public display of affection' taboo. I notice it seems much stronger in non-urban areas than anywhere else. Public displays of affection - hugging, kissing, playful groping - are good things, not bad. They remind us of our own loved ones, or inspire us to similar gentle acts of loving, in public or in private.

'Making out' is obviously a subjective term. A kiss does not equal a blowjob. A hug is not interchangeable with penetrative sex. The two lovers in question were seen to be kissing, not greasing each other's loins.

I ask you Chess Squares - why do public displays of affection elicit this particular response from you?

It's possible that if he's not going to be allowed to PDA, then no one should be.

It's possible that if he's not going to be allowed to PDA, then no one should be.

That's ludicrous in the extreme. Who wouldn't "allow" him a public display of affection, his Mommy? The PDA police?

That's like saying, those people are eating ice cream in public, and I don't have an ice cream, so to make everybody happy, those people shouldn't be 'allowed' to eat ice cream in public.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

That's a perfectly good reason. The government should stay out of marriage. That is, the government should not recognize heterosexual marriages, either. And if the government chooses to implement a legal equivalent of marriage, then it should make no restrictions based on sexuality.
I don't think so. If you want to take the government out of marriage, do not start it by creating inequality. It would be better to let gays marry now, then get gov't out of all marrriage later.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!


So basically I should never have the right to hold hands or kiss my boyfriend in public because...?

Because it would make you uncomfortable explaining it to your kid(s)?

Get real. You don't determine your sexual orientation by copying what you see, you know. If we did, I'd be heterosexual just like my parents and every other couple I saw while growing up. I was literally flooded with hetero role models and I'm still gay.

It seems logical that little heterosexual kids would still be hetero, even if they were flooded with gay roles models, would they not?(which is far from happening, by the way. Gays are a minority among world population, remember?) And, that couple wasn,t trying to recruit kids into gayness, you know. They were, like, holding hands and kissing just like evey other hetero lovey-dovey couple. If they weren't doing anything you'd find a man and a woman doing and thought indecent,cut em some slack. I don't like double standards...

Breeders will always breed, because it is their nature. The homosexual free from the burden of procreation and child rearing will always lead, in art, literature, politics , all the fields which require a focused will. this will is lost in the concerns of conventional family life. that is why i believe, inorder to save the aryan race from destruction, it must be lead by an elite cadre of dedicated homosexuals. thus i present The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual National Socialist Workingperson's Party.

Man, this is the weirdest political party I've ever heard of.


If it was real, I'd get my membership card right away :D

Man, this is the weirdest political party I've ever heard of.


If it was real, I'd get my membership card right away :D

Except for the bit about saving the 'Aryan' race...

I don't think so. If you want to take the government out of marriage, do not start it by creating inequality. It would be better to let gays marry now, then get gov't out of all marrriage later.
I agree. My comments were not arguments for banning gay marriage. They are what I believe to be acceptable final states. I by no means condone any government-endorsed social inequalities. That includes the 'sanctity' of marriage as well as affirmative action and anything else that might come to mind. However, I find it equally reprehensible to force churches to marry gay couples, as that is a form of affirmative action.

No matter how you try to argue the question either from a Christian stand point or from an athiest scientific standpoint it is wrong to be gay. Gay people do not support the continuation of the human race. The best they can do is to adopt or artificially inseminate which putting aside all moral arguments will amount to the same thing if in turn their descendants opt for the same path. Society is built on universal truths. If being gay were a universal truth then the world would die in one generation.......

No matter how you try to argue the question either from a Christian stand point or from an athiest scientific standpoint it is wrong to be gay. Gay people do not support the continuation of the human race. The best they can do is to adopt or artificially inseminate which putting aside all moral arguments will amount to the same thing if in turn their descendants opt for the same path. Society is built on universal truths. If being gay were a universal truth then the world would die in one generation.......

This is so wrond on so many levels I do not even know where to begin...

One: I know scores of Christians AND atheists who argue that being gay isn't wrong.

Two: Gay poeple support the continuation of the human race, because the continuation of the race doesn't just require breeding more children. It needs doctors, professors, lawyers(alright, maybe lawyers aren't a necessity :P), artists, actors, and just about everything a gay person can make a career out of, as can heterosexuals who have no children also contribute to the welfare of society and continuation of the human race. Don't lower humanity down to just mindless baby-breeding to ensure survival: that's not how humans work.

Three: NO evidence whatsoever support that "their descendants will opt for the same path". IF children adopted the same sexual orientation as their parents, I'd be straight. That argument is bullsh*t.

Four: Society is NOT built on universal truths. If it were, there would be no need for change in legislation, democratic elections, or evolution within our society. Universal truths always stay true, no matter what happens, and our world or societies are FAR from unchanging.

Next time you post, please take time to think through what you write.

I've never understood the whole 'no public display of affection' taboo. I notice it seems much stronger in non-urban areas than anywhere else. Public displays of affection - hugging, kissing, playful groping - are good things, not bad. They remind us of our own loved ones, or inspire us to similar gentle acts of loving, in public or in private.

'Making out' is obviously a subjective term. A kiss does not equal a blowjob. A hug is not interchangeable with penetrative sex. The two lovers in question were seen to be kissing, not greasing each other's loins.

I ask you Chess Squares - why do public displays of affection elicit this particular response from you?
i didnt say hugging or holdigh hands or some shit, i said kissing and making out.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

I agree, two gay people should not be making out in front of a bunch of kids waiting to see omeone in a Santa outfit. But neither should two straight people! It's inappropriate either way.

Children shuld be taught that homosexuality is just as natural and normal as heterosexuality. It's prevalent in the animal kingdom. And I don't think that God is going to send some gay animals to Hell, and the others to Heaven.

There is something you might want to read, called the Declaration of Human Rights. It states that all people have the intrinsic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does NOT say "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you are a faggot". Or was it re-written recently? I doubt it.

No matter how you try to argue the question either from a Christian stand point or from an athiest scientific standpoint it is wrong to be gay. Gay people do not support the continuation of the human race. The best they can do is to adopt or artificially inseminate which putting aside all moral arguments will amount to the same thing if in turn their descendants opt for the same path. Society is built on universal truths. If being gay were a universal truth then the world would die in one generation.......

The continuation of the human race isn't just about sperm penetrating ova.

GAYNESS IS WRONG. god said so so fuck you if you don't agree. cos you will burn in hell forever and me and my fellow gay hating christ loving jew despising family worshipping cock fearing happy clapping chums will sit on god's right hand. i love the feel of his fingers. oh yes

That made me laugh so hard it woke up my son from his nap. :D :D

So basically I should never have the right to hold hands or kiss my boyfriend in public because...?

Because it would make you uncomfortable explaining it to your kid(s)?

Get real. You don't determine your sexual orientation by copying what you see, you know. If we did, I'd be heterosexual just like my parents and every other couple I saw while growing up. I was literally flooded with hetero role models and I'm still gay.

It seems logical that little heterosexual kids would still be hetero, even if they were flooded with gay roles models, would they not?(which is far from happening, by the way. Gays are a minority among world population, remember?) And, that couple wasn,t trying to recruit kids into gayness, you know. They were, like, holding hands and kissing just like evey other hetero lovey-dovey couple. If they weren't doing anything you'd find a man and a woman doing and thought indecent,cut em some slack. I don't like double standards...Want a real life example? My daughter lives with her lesbian mother and girlfriend, and has for seven of the last ten years (three of those years she was with me, her heterosexual father). She's fourteen, and quite heterosexual (although not active yet, thank goodness). You would think that if there were anyone who would be "infected" by gayness simply by being exposed to it, it would be my daughter. But so far, much to the dismay of morons like Amall Madnar, she's stayed resolutely hetero.

I agree, two gay people should not be making out in front of a bunch of kids waiting to see omeone in a Santa outfit. But neither should two straight people! It's inappropriate either way.

There is something you might want to read, called the Declaration of Human Rights. It states that all people have the intrinsic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does NOT say "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you are a faggot". Or was it re-written recently? I doubt it.

People should 'make out' in front of children, if by 'making out' you mean a public display of affection. Do you want your kids growing up to think that there's something wrong with hugs and kisses?

I think it's 'inappropriate' for children to see adults fighting in public. I think seeing two men kiss is head-and-shoulders above seeing two men fight.
How do you personally define 'inappropriate'? How can anyone serve as an arbiter of what is, or isn't, appropriate?

Amall you disgust me.Two gay people making out is exactly the same thing as two straight people making out. Yes, it is inappropriate in front of kids,but no more so than it would be with a man and woman. Discriminating against homosexuals in the way you do is un-American and disgraceful.

I would just like to say that right here in the bible it says: "And all rod-huggers, carpet eaters, and men with dresses shall perish and burn in hell and wish they hadn't been fagotty fag-fags." Thank you. Oh wait, it doesn't say that in there, In fact it says nothing of gays. Darn. I guess all Christans shouldn't hate gays. Wow. What a discovery.

I would just like to say that right here in the bible it says: "And all rod-huggers, carpet eaters, and men with dresses shall perish and burn in hell and wish they hadn't been fagotty fag-fags." Thank you. Oh wait, it doesn't say that in there, In fact it says nothing of gays. Darn. I guess all Christans shouldn't hate gays. Wow. What a discovery.

Actually, and I'm completely pro-gay marriage, it does say that homosexual actions are an abnormality and should be banned. Or, something along the lines. Then again, this is the Old Testament, in which it also says that we shouldn't eat beef or shellfish (including shrimp and lobster). So, to Hell with that then.

Furthermore, the issue of Christianity and God should not be allowed to be included in the debate about gay marriage. I don't know if anyone noticed but there are other religions in the United States. Just because the President is a Christian, it doesn't mean the rest of the Nation is.

Separation of the Church and State, goddammit! :p

Want a real life example? My daughter lives with her lesbian mother and girlfriend, and has for seven of the last ten years (three of those years she was with me, her heterosexual father). She's fourteen, and quite heterosexual (although not active yet, thank goodness). You would think that if there were anyone who would be "infected" by gayness simply by being exposed to it, it would be my daughter. But so far, much to the dismay of morons like Amall Madnar, she's stayed resolutely hetero.

An isolated case, does not a point make.

Breeders will always breed, because it is their nature. The homosexual free from the burden of procreation and child rearing will always lead, in art, literature, politics , all the fields which require a focused will. this will is lost in the concerns of conventional family life. that is why i believe, inorder to save the aryan race from destruction, it must be lead by an elite cadre of dedicated homosexuals. thus i present The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual National Socialist Workingperson's Party.

Yup, thats just what the world needs...Gay Totalitarians...haven't we've seen enough of that by watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?

<snip reference to research that indicates growing up in a gay family has a negative effect on the children?
Therefore homosexuals should remain barred from the option of adoption.

But that doesn't mean they can't love eachother, show affection in public or get married. Being married doesn't mean you can automatically adopt a child after all (or at least it shouldn't), the adoption agency should research other factors as well. If it is proven to be detrimental to the child to grow up in a gay family.. too bad for the couple.

Did anyone else notice how this is the incorrect stupid statement? France has never had overt aggressive tendencies towards the US. The correct ignorant statement would have been, "If people like me weren't around, America would be called 'Germany'."

Eeehm, no. Since "Louisiana" once occupied over 1/3 of the current USA and was French this statement has some basis in history. Similar statements could be made about the USA being British or Dutch. Or indeed Germany, if Hitler had won WO II.

And to the "gays are wrong because they don't breed" argument.. why would we need more humans ? There are too many of us already.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

Easily: Just say "Those two gentlemen love each other the way your mother and father love each other." Is it so difficult to be reasonable? By the way: every time an American complains about how another person pursues his own happiness, a Founding Father turns in his grave.

Oh the petty arguments of a hateful heart :mad: (on both sides of the spectrum!) One who hates homosexuals for the situations they're in, and another who hates the "religious right" :mad: for their intolerance of homosexuals; while at the same time the "right-haters" are intolerant of the right's opinion. And you see it's a bloody cycle that never ends...A question now....How many people who responded are actually homosexuals or really know (not just aqcuaintance) someone who is a homosexual?? :confused: Well I have had a chance to speak with many homosexual men and one thing I can say from experience is that your present culture is lying to you...to all of us! The media/films/television portray homosexuality and homosexuals as the following :always joyous,happy(hence the word gay),fun-loving people who are fighting to be accepted for "how God made me" and to be loved for "who they are". And this my friends is a lie! :eek: The average homosexual, the run-o'-the-mill homosexual you meet on the street, in malls etc., the homosexual I've always found in conversations with them is the following: Pleading for help! Confused, and tortured over the attractions they feel even though they wish they did'nt feel them. Let me tell you something ' Most homosexuals are straighter than any straight man' Because they feel an attraction to men does not in any way diminsh they're attraction to women any more than someone who is into animals is still into the opposite sex! Homosexuality is just another 'degree' of perversion,just as bestiality and pornography! Granted they are on different levels. I'll end with this, my last conversation with a homosexual man lead him to confess to me the following(with permission):"Every time I sleep with a man, I cry afterwards..for hours from shame, because I know it's so wrong"! The answer is not to hate or discriminate but to get the facts and deal with them.

Unlike many "real-world" countries, the Grand Duchy of Nykobing-Mors has legal same-sex marriage and has a full panoply of civil-rights legislation on the subject of preventing discrimination.

We don't have shopping malls yet, but our name means "New Market" (pronounce it "nigh shooping") and our many pretty villages have high streets in which you will often see Gay couples kiss and / or hold hands.

Valdemar XIX
Gd. Duke of Nykobing-Mors, by the grace of God

That's funny, I don't know anybody who tortures themselves over love the way you're talking about.




Oh the petty arguments of a hateful heart :mad: (on both sides of the spectrum!) One who hates homosexuals for the situations they're in, and another who hates the "religious right" :mad: for their intolerance of homosexuals; while at the same time the "right-haters" are intolerant of the right's opinion. And you see it's a bloody cycle that never ends...A question now....How many people who responded are actually homosexuals or really know (not just aqcuaintance) someone who is a homosexual?? :confused: Well I have had a chance to speak with many homosexual men and one thing I can say from experience is that your present culture is lying to you...to all of us! The media/films/television portray homosexuality and homosexuals as the following :always joyous,happy(hence the word gay),fun-loving people who are fighting to be accepted for "how God made me" and to be loved for "who they are". And this my friends is a lie! :eek: The average homosexual, the run-o'-the-mill homosexual you meet on the street, in malls etc., the homosexual I've always found in conversations with them is the following: Pleading for help! Confused, and tortured over the attractions they feel even though they wish they did'nt feel them. Let me tell you something ' Most homosexuals are straighter than any straight man' Because they feel an attraction to men does not in any way diminsh they're attraction to women any more than someone who is into animals is still into the opposite sex! Homosexuality is just another 'degree' of perversion,just as bestiality and pornography! Granted they are on different levels. I'll end with this, my last conversation with a homosexual man lead him to confess to me the following(with permission):"Every time I sleep with a man, I cry afterwards..for hours from shame, because I know it's so wrong"! The answer is not to hate or discriminate but to get the facts and deal with them.

An isolated case, does not a point make.
Except that my daughter is not an isolated case--the research, limited though it may be, suggests that prolonged exposure to gay people has no effect on a child's sexuality. None whatsoever.

Except that my daughter is not an isolated case--the research, limited though it may be, suggests that prolonged exposure to gay people has no effect on a child's sexuality. None whatsoever.

it often improves taste,broadens prospectives and increases education levels but aside from that...

Yup, thats just what the world needs...Gay Totalitarians...haven't we've seen enough of that by watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?

well sure queer eye is a good start, allowing superior gay men to give back to the community but improving the appearence of some slightly dim breeders.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

Why if this keeps up they will be giving Black people equal rights and letting women vote.

Oh the petty arguments of a hateful heart :mad: (on both sides of the spectrum!) One who hates homosexuals for the situations they're in, and another who hates the "religious right" :mad: for their intolerance of homosexuals; while at the same time the "right-haters" are intolerant of the right's opinion. And you see it's a bloody cycle that never ends...A question now....How many people who responded are actually homosexuals or really know (not just aqcuaintance) someone who is a homosexual?? :confused: Well I have had a chance to speak with many homosexual men and one thing I can say from experience is that your present culture is lying to you...to all of us! The media/films/television portray homosexuality and homosexuals as the following :always joyous,happy(hence the word gay),fun-loving people who are fighting to be accepted for "how God made me" and to be loved for "who they are". And this my friends is a lie! :eek: The average homosexual, the run-o'-the-mill homosexual you meet on the street, in malls etc., the homosexual I've always found in conversations with them is the following: Pleading for help! Confused, and tortured over the attractions they feel even though they wish they did'nt feel them. Let me tell you something ' Most homosexuals are straighter than any straight man' Because they feel an attraction to men does not in any way diminsh they're attraction to women any more than someone who is into animals is still into the opposite sex! Homosexuality is just another 'degree' of perversion,just as bestiality and pornography! Granted they are on different levels. I'll end with this, my last conversation with a homosexual man lead him to confess to me the following(with permission):"Every time I sleep with a man, I cry afterwards..for hours from shame, because I know it's so wrong"! The answer is not to hate or discriminate but to get the facts and deal with them.
I not only know and have had the occasion to talk to homosexuals, but I have taken upon myself the great burden of befriending homosexuals. I've not experienced anything like what you describe. I was friends with several of them before I found out that they were gay, and I can assure you that gay people are no more imbalanced on the whole than 100 pound girls who think they're fat.

One of my friends told me how it was difficult to accept that he was never going to have a wife and kids, as he'd grown up believing. However, he does not regret being gay, and he has no desire to change his ways.

Another of my friends admits being slightly homophobic. He tells stories about his abusive father and about being spit on by his peers in high school. His homophobia could as easily be attributed to society's flaws as his own. And he also frequently comments about how much he hates girls.

All of the others, apart from the pain of losing friends and being outcast by their own religions, have never shown any signs of regretting their preferences.

That is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's ok for straight couples to make out and have sex in public, but if a gay man shows affection for his partner in public, people freak out.
And on the subject of gay marriage, whose business is it who somebody marries? Joe and Sally got married in Vegas...Do you even give a shit? But then there's Ken and John, and they get married, and everyone gets in their face because they're two men and they're gay. Honestly, what's the damn deal?

No matter how you try to argue the question either from a Christian stand point or from an athiest scientific standpoint it is wrong to be gay. Gay people do not support the continuation of the human race. The best they can do is to adopt or artificially inseminate which putting aside all moral arguments will amount to the same thing if in turn their descendants opt for the same path. Society is built on universal truths. If being gay were a universal truth then the world would die in one generation.......

Okay, Koutsunis, I can see that you don't grasp the fundimental reality that there are no universal truths. I can also see that you have very little idea about what it takes to ensure the success of a species. You seem to be stuck in phase one: breeding uber alles. Which at our stage of the game is more than slightly ridiculous. Our species has outbred its environment already. Would you have us breed ourselves to extinction?

Or do you prefer the disease and war solution to our population problems to the elegant and peaceful solution of allowing those members of our species that prefer the love of their own gender to slow our catastrophic expansion? Hell, I'm a female in a heterosexual relationship and I REFUSE to produce offspring. There are far too many who irresponsibly choose to pump out babies right and left already.

Get a grip you smallminded homophobe.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

1: Logic check!

Fallacy 1: Argumentam ad Odium.
For starters, what is it about homosexuals that makes them bad?

Fallacy 2: Argumentam ad Misericordiam
What does feeling sorry for the father have to do with the argument? That's a red herring.

Fallacy 3: You have a faulty premise.
"And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!"
You must logically prove that this will make them gay before you can use this in your argument.
I grew up around conservative Christian striaghts all my life, yet I am gay, so there's some evidence that who kids grow up around doesn't affect their sexual orientation.

Fallacy 4: Slippery Slope Fallacy
What, pray tell, would make it so they teach it in school? That is not a logical derivative of anything you have said so far.

Sorry, you are not a winner. Please play again soon.

GAYNESS IS WRONG. god said so so fuck you if you don't agree. cos you will burn in hell forever and me and my fellow gay hating christ loving jew despising family worshipping cock fearing happy clapping chums will sit on god's right hand. i love the feel of his fingers. oh yes

Ummmm.... what?

OMGz I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

Phear teh cock! Bow down and pray you neither possess it nor recieve it! LOLOL! wtf...........

WOW!! BOOSLANDIA'S PEOPLE DON'T MAKE MUCH OF CHECKING THEIR OPINIUH.....I MEAN "FACTS" DO THEY!!

First of all we are not bred to a point of capacity in this earth it is only a case of bad space management by the leaders of nations ( maybe Booslandia )

Second of all (and this is a free 'didyaknow' ) the entire earth's population can be gathered into the glorious state of Texas ...........and enjoy quite a spacious living I might add.

Two: Gay poeple support the continuation of the human race, because the continuation of the race doesn't just require breeding more children. It needs doctors, professors, lawyers(alright, maybe lawyers aren't a necessity :P), artists, actors, and just about everything a gay person can make a career out of, as can heterosexuals who have no children also contribute to the welfare of society and continuation of the human race. Don't lower humanity down to just mindless baby-breeding to ensure survival: that's not how humans work.
Yes the continuation of a race maybe enhanced by having doctors, scientists, artists, but the funning thing is that heterosexual people can be all these things AND breeders as well. It may be mindless, but it's the basics of survival. Your argument carries no weight.

How do you personally define 'inappropriate'? How can anyone serve as an arbiter of what is, or isn't, appropriate?
Your parents should have been your arbiters of basic morals (this is taking into account you had good parents and if not then they basically messed up and hence, here you are clueless) and should have instilled in you what is appropriate in public. If people have no definition of what is 'inappropriate' then anyone can be just a hop skip and a jump from public fornication. There will always be people who will test public boundaries. It's just human nature.

Originally Posted by Ernst_Rohm
it often improves taste,broadens prospectives and increases education levels but aside from that...
Sure, wasn't hitler gay?
well sure queer eye is a good start, allowing superior gay men to give back to the community but improving the appearence of some slightly dim breeders.
You forgot? It's "allowing superior gay WHITE men". This must be the broadened prospective you were talking about. Now inform me how this heterosexual bashing helps your cause? Hmmmmmmmmmm, it don't do it?

All of the others, apart from the pain of losing friends and being outcast by their own religions, have never shown any signs of regretting their preferences.
So what is your point? Just because his experiences are not yours that his are wrong or don’t matter?

Now finally, to the thread maker. I know you may think there is a “gay agenda” in America and they are all out to take the children. The truth is they are too busy dealing with all this bigotry that a child’s moral welfare is the least of their concerns. Heaven forbid parents should talk to your children and explain a little life to them. Stop hiding behind this “protect the children veil” just because you can’t deal with life yourself. This tired argument that “children copy everything they see” is old and really insulting. There are ADULTS who copy everything they see (idiots who think pink is the new black and what is up with those fuzzy boots and ponchos all the women are wearing these days?). It’s just easier to say idiots copy everything they see cause they come in all ages, races, and sexual preferences.

I'm only going to respond to the part of your post that addressed me. I'm sure the others will be quite happy to refute everything else that you've said.

So what is your point? Just because his experiences are not yours that his are wrong or don’t matter?

Just because my experiences are different, mine are wrong or don't matter? Let's be realistic here. You cannot believe that I had any such intentions, unless you believe that you had the same intentions.

My point was that his experiences were not necessarily representative of the entire population. I make no further claims. I have no agenda to push.

At least someone here is somewhat aware of the evils of the "homosexuals." These savage beasts roam the earth, seeking the ruination of souls, and the destruction of Divine order. Filthy "homosexuals" ought to receive their just punishment...

Oh the petty arguments of a hateful heart :mad: (on both sides of the spectrum!) One who hates homosexuals for the situations they're in, and another who hates the "religious right" :mad: for their intolerance of homosexuals; while at the same time the "right-haters" are intolerant of the right's opinion. And you see it's a bloody cycle that never ends...A question now....How many people who responded are actually homosexuals or really know (not just aqcuaintance) someone who is a homosexual?? :confused: Well I have had a chance to speak with many homosexual men and one thing I can say from experience is that your present culture is lying to you...to all of us! The media/films/television portray homosexuality and homosexuals as the following :always joyous,happy(hence the word gay),fun-loving people who are fighting to be accepted for "how God made me" and to be loved for "who they are". And this my friends is a lie! :eek: The average homosexual, the run-o'-the-mill homosexual you meet on the street, in malls etc., the homosexual I've always found in conversations with them is the following: Pleading for help! Confused, and tortured over the attractions they feel even though they wish they did'nt feel them. Let me tell you something ' Most homosexuals are straighter than any straight man' Because they feel an attraction to men does not in any way diminsh they're attraction to women any more than someone who is into animals is still into the opposite sex! Homosexuality is just another 'degree' of perversion,just as bestiality and pornography! Granted they are on different levels. I'll end with this, my last conversation with a homosexual man lead him to confess to me the following(with permission):"Every time I sleep with a man, I cry afterwards..for hours from shame, because I know it's so wrong"! The answer is not to hate or discriminate but to get the facts and deal with them.

What a large post. And with not a single provable fact anywhere... nice work.

Your last line is the most important: "get the facts and deal with them"... and, when you have completed the first part... how about coming back and discussing them.

Sorry, friend... I don't believe a word of your post... in fact, I suspect you made most of it up, to try to prove some sort of point. I'm not sure what that point was supposed to be...

At least someone here is somewhat aware of the evils of the "homosexuals." These savage beasts roam the earth, seeking the ruination of souls, and the destruction of Divine order. Filthy "homosexuals" ought to receive their just punishment...

Apart form vitriol and hate (totally out of proportion to the thread, too - what set that off? Is there a reason this is such an ingflamed issue for you?), this post has nothing... no facts, no evidence... not even a commentary on the original post, or a response to any other post.

Thanks for sharing, but if all you are going to do is rage... well, then why do it in a 'debate' forum?

Is this a 'debate' forum? How did I get here?

Is this a 'debate' forum? How did I get here?

Took the wrong turn just after McDonalds... don't worry, lots of people do it. :)

Just because my experiences are different, mine are wrong or don't matter? Let's be realistic here. You cannot believe that I had any such intentions, unless you believe that you had the same intentions.

My point was that his experiences were not necessarily representative of the entire population. I make no further claims. I have no agenda to push.
Let’s take a look at your quote again, shall we.
All of the others, apart from the pain of losing friends and being outcast by their own religions, have never shown any signs of regretting their preferences.
Apart from the fact that your "friends" may not exactly be sharing all their inner most thoughts with you, you assume they have NEVER regretted their preference. Why would they tell you if they did? And he never said it was the entire population either. He does mention AVERAGE. And if you have no agenda to push, why did you bother to share your point (which according to you was to show that his experiences were not necessarily representative of the entire population. I smell agenda.). And you are welcome to refute anything else you want, that is, if you can?

That is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's ok for straight couples to make out and have sex in public, but if a gay man shows affection for his partner in public, people freak out.
And on the subject of gay marriage, whose business is it who somebody marries? Joe and Sally got married in Vegas...Do you even give a shit? But then there's Ken and John, and they get married, and everyone gets in their face because they're two men and they're gay. Honestly, what's the damn deal?
The "damn deal" is that, for some reason, most people are not happy unless they feel that their morals are being upheld. For some of us, that means equality; for others, prejudice.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!
you do realise that sexuality is determined by an early age...

you also do realise that if the kid goes and kisses his best friend because he saw two men doing it that it will probably be a one shot deal?

you also realise that straight couples do so much more than just kiss in public. hell, i'm sure guilty of doing that in my youth...

Let’s take a look at your quote again, shall we.

Apart from the fact that your "friends" may not exactly be sharing all their inner most thoughts with you, you assume they have NEVER regretted their preference. Why would they tell you if they did? And he never said it was the entire population either. He does mention AVERAGE. And if you have no agenda to push, why did you bother to share your point (which according to you was to show that his experiences were not necessarily representative of the entire population. I smell agenda.). And you are welcome to refute anything else you want, that is, if you can?

"never shown any signs" -> "assume they have NEVER" = False. Read my post again. I'm not saying anything more than its exact wording indicates.

He does mention AVERAGE. My experiences do not reflect his claims. That was my point.

I brought up my experiences because I like to see well-reasoned and supported arguments. I hope that he will be able to learn from my comments and strengthen his case.

And at your request:

Yes the continuation of a race maybe enhanced by having doctors, scientists, artists, but the funning thing is that heterosexual people can be all these things AND breeders as well. It may be mindless, but it's the basics of survival. Your argument carries no weight.

I'm not a biologist. I'm betting that you're not either, but I admit that I have no credentials to argue this point. However, it has been purported on this forum that non-reproducing members are vital to the well-being of a society. They assist in the caretaking of the young of others' offspring, relieving the strain from the other members. Also, it has been pointed out that abstinent or infertile heterosexuals or the elderly are of no more value to society than are homosexuals, from your perspective.

Your parents should have been your arbiters of basic morals (this is taking into account you had good parents and if not then they basically messed up and hence, here you are clueless) and should have instilled in you what is appropriate in public. If people have no definition of what is 'inappropriate' then anyone can be just a hop skip and a jump from public fornication. There will always be people who will test public boundaries. It's just human nature.

What evidence do you have that suggests your morals are the correct ones? Every society in the history of the world has used parents to teach its morals to their young. Do you believe that the Aztecs, the Romans, the Hunns had the ideal moral values? They probably thought that they did.

Sure, wasn't hitler gay?

This one's easy. No, he wasn't. What makes you think that? Did he make a pass at you?

I don't have any real objection to the remainder of that post.

Okay, Koutsunis, I can see that you don't grasp the fundimental reality that there are no universal truths. I can also see that you have very little idea about what it takes to ensure the success of a species. You seem to be stuck in phase one: breeding uber alles. Which at our stage of the game is more than slightly ridiculous. Our species has outbred its environment already. Would you have us breed ourselves to extinction?

Or do you prefer the disease and war solution to our population problems to the elegant and peaceful solution of allowing those members of our species that prefer the love of their own gender to slow our catastrophic expansion? Hell, I'm a female in a heterosexual relationship and I REFUSE to produce offspring. There are far too many who irresponsibly choose to pump out babies right and left already.

Get a grip you smallminded homophobe.

The truth is that everyone is smallminded by not accepting other people's oppinions. I personally am conservative in many ways. I DO NOT think that gays should have marriage rights, I am also against having gay people in positions where they are near kids. But I still think that or atleast in the U.S. they should still have normal citizen rights, mainly because I love my country for its vast amount of freedom, I suppose I could be considered a Nationalist. Yes this is prejudice. but i am entitled to my own oppinions as are you.

As for the environment thing, if we move more inland and away from the coasts then we wouldn't have overcrowding.

Choosing to remain a virgin until married is a good thing!

Honestly though, would you want a gay male teacher around your 4 year old son in a nursurey school?

The truth is that everyone is smallminded by not accepting other people's oppinions. I personally am conservative in many ways. I DO NOT think that gays should have marriage rights, I am also against having gay people in positions where they are near kids. But I still think that or atleast in the U.S. they should still have normal citizen rights...
Hypocrisy at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen. You do realize that denying the right to marriage is a big slap in the face to the freedom you claim to love, don't you?

The truth is that everyone is smallminded by not accepting other people's oppinions. I personally am conservative in many ways. I DO NOT think that gays should have marriage rights, I am also against having gay people in positions where they are near kids. But I still think that or atleast in the U.S. they should still have normal citizen rights, mainly because I love my country for its vast amount of freedom, I suppose I could be considered a Nationalist. Yes this is prejudice. but i am entitled to my own oppinions as are you.

You are not a conservative if you support giving "citizen rights" to the beasts.

The truth is that everyone is smallminded by not accepting other people's oppinions. I personally am conservative in many ways. I DO NOT think that gays should have marriage rights, I am also against having gay people in positions where they are near kids. But I still think that or atleast in the U.S. they should still have normal citizen rights, mainly because I love my country for its vast amount of freedom, I suppose I could be considered a Nationalist.

Vast amounts of freedom, as long as you happen to be Christian and not gay. That's called hypocrisy.

Yes this is prejudice. but i am entitled to my own oppinions as are you.

Good, finally somebody who doesn't try to force their opinions on everybody else!


Honestly though, would you want a gay male teacher around your 4 year old son in a nursurey school?

I wouldn't care. It's not like gays are by default going to be any more promiscuous than straights.

That was like asking, "Honestly, would you want your daughter around a straight male teacher in school?"

See how it was fallacious?

Hypocrisy at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen. You do realize that denying the right to marriage is a big slap in the face to the freedom you claim to love, don't you?

Excuse me but there is no such right in the constitution! so technically yes it is hipocrasy but because the government does not support either side it isn't.

Excuse me but there is no such right in the constitution! so technically yes it is hipocrasy but because the government does not support either side it isn't.
You claim you love America because it is free. Therefore, regardless of whether or not marriage is a Constitutional Right, the fact that you would deny it to a certain group of people makes you a hypocrite. By the way, you should really read the ninth amendment.

You are not a conservative if you support giving "citizen rights" to the beasts.

i consider myself to be conservative.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

I'm not going to form an opinion on this, but we have to ask ourselves the following question:

Is homosexuality really normal? Is it really just as characteristic to be gay as it is to be straight? What would that child feel?

As I said, I haven't formed an opinion on this.

You claim you love America because it is free. Therefore, regardless of whether or not marriage is a Constitutional Right, the fact that you would deny it to a certain group of people makes you a hypocrite. By the way, you should really read the ninth amendment.

I did. And it says that the rights of the people are not limited by the constitution. in my oppinion Marriage is not a right, it is a privalege!

I did. And it says that the rights of the people are not limited by the constitution. in my oppinion Marriage is not a right, it is a privalege!
Ah, but if marriage is a priveledge, then what about the 14th Amendment?

You are not a conservative if you support giving "citizen rights" to the beasts.

Troll. Flamebait.

Thanks for your time, don't let us keep you.

Ah, but if marriage is a priveledge, then what about the 14th Amendment?

The 14 amendment to the constitution just says that states cannot make laws that limit or take away privaleges. it does not mention National Government being involved in taking away privaleges.

The 14 amendment to the constitution just says that states cannot make laws that limit or take away privaleges. it does not mention National Government being involved in taking away privaleges.
True, but now take a look at the 10th, keeping the 14th in mind.

EDIT: On second thought, just look at the main body of the Constitution. The whole thing says exactly what the Federal Government is allowed to do. Anything not listed there is not a power of the Federal Government.

Whats the difference between that and two women kissing? They wont do it unless they were born that way, what part of homosexuality is not a choice do you not get?

Troll. Flamebait.

Thanks for your time, don't let us keep you.
What a convenient way for you to + post count... :rolleyes:

What a convenient way for you to + post count... :rolleyes:

Thankyou, that explains it.

I DID wonder why someone would post a vicious attack, with no factual basis.

It is obviously trolling, and it is obviously flame-bait.

Now, it becomes clear... you are doing it to add to your post count.

Personally, I think that a little sad.

True, but now take a look at the 10th, keeping the 14th in mind.

Just to let you know, I am in 8th grade. It has been fun debating with you.

The 10th Amendment states that Powers that aren't given to the Nat. Gov. and aren't denied to the State gov. are reserved for the states or people. But the 14th amendment actually counts against your argument not for it.

shot down like a one-winged duck :sniper:

True, but now take a look at the 10th, keeping the 14th in mind.

EDIT: On second thought, just look at the main body of the Constitution. The whole thing says exactly what the Federal Government is allowed to do. Anything not listed there is not a power of the Federal Government.

Oh, well in that case do you mean up to the 4th article or the entire constitution.

Just to let you know, I am in 8th grade. It has been fun debating with you.

The 10th Amendment states that Powers that aren't given to the Nat. Gov. and aren't denied to the State gov. are reserved for the states or people. But the 14th amendment actually counts against your argument not for it.

shot down like a one-winged duck :sniper:
I realized that and changed the argument; go back and look. By the way, I am having fun debating with you as well. I'm a musician, but I always enjoy seeing people with a knowledge of the Constitution.

Oh, well in that case do you mean up to the 4th article or the entire constitution.
Well, it's the first three that are most important for this argument. Specifically, Article 1 Section 8 contains all of the powers of Congress, and Article 2 Section 2 contains all of the powers of the President.

Thankyou, that explains it.

I DID wonder why someone would post a vicious attack, with no factual basis.

It is obviously trolling, and it is obviously flame-bait.

Now, it becomes clear... you are doing it to add to your post count.

Personally, I think that a little sad.
Again you + post count.

And you are also apparently incapable of understanding basic English as well...

I realized that and changed the argument; go back and look. By the way, I am having fun debating with you as well. I'm a musician, but I always enjoy seeing people with a knowledge of the Constitution.

The constitution is a great piece of political literature, perhaps the greatest.

Thankyou, that explains it.

I DID wonder why someone would post a vicious attack, with no factual basis.

It is obviously trolling, and it is obviously flame-bait.

Now, it becomes clear... you are doing it to add to your post count.

Personally, I think that a little sad.
You should know better than to feed the trolls, Grave_n_idle.

The constitution is a great piece of political literature, perhaps the greatest.
Indeed it is. It's a shame so many people have so little understanding of the workings of their government. Regardless of our disagreement here, please know that I hold you in very high regards for that statement!

Of course there is negative influence of homosexuality on society.
I saw a very interesting documentary and discussion on Arte on Monday.
It was about the a study of the effects of homosexual "parents" on children.
The children living under a gay or lesbian couple were asked DIRETLY. That was very important to give the children a voice directly. Too children clearly said, that they were part of an experiment, one even said that all studies claiming that there is no effect of same-sex parents were manipulated for the reason of political correctness.
It became clear through this very interesting documentary that the claims of the gay-activists are wrong.
The children are suffering from different effects. The missing mother or father is a problem.
And this hole can´t be filled by a member of the different sex.
The argument that it can be filled by friends of the family is void because it is missing the role of the father or mother which is not that of an "uncle" or "aunt".
Also the children tend to grow up in a more steril environment in which the other sex is missing within this "family".
Interestingly the girl of a lesbian couple was able to play with Baby toys although her lesbian "mothers" didn´t want it (they were against this "female role-model").
But obviously human nature has certain charateristics which can´t be barred.
None the less, life is much more difficult for such children especially if they have to fight to life a normal (traditional) life although their "parents" present them another role-model.
Noone should forget that parents are the first role-model children get. It is of utmost importance to present a good role-model. And undoubtably the role-model of any society is a heterosexual relationship.
Many of the children said that they are part of an "experiment" (homosexuals as parents).
The question is whether we should allow such human experiments.
At least more study should be done to determine the long-term effects in the cases which have already happened and are currently happening.
Up until this is done it is - to say the least - irresponsible to push more children in such a situation.
Therefore homosexuals should remain barred from the option of adoption.This "Arte on Monday" is a show that I have never seen but all that comes across from your post is that either the show or you have an anti-gay bias. When you say that the children were asked "diretly", you don't mention what they were asked, how it was phrased or even the ages of the children concerned. I mean - "Do you feel like an experiment is being performed on you?" is a very different question to "How do you feel about your parents relationship?" especially if the children asked were about 12-13, most particularly if they were (for one reason or another) pissed at their parents.

As for the "effects" they are "suffering", you fail to mention what they are. As for the missing father or mother being a problem, you fail to mention that there is more of an issue with single parent families than gay parent ones. You mention a void and attribute it to the sexuality, rather than the relationship of the parents. At least the child is (hopefully) experiencing a loving relationship, regardless of the orientation of the parents. There is too little of that around for kids to witness as it stands - hetero or homo. You also make the assumption that, because the biological parents do not have sex, that they do not both participate in the childs life - a flawed base for your premise. As is your assertion that a gay parent family is "a sterile environment where the other sex is missing". What garbage.

And as far as the "mothers" of the little girl not wanting her to play with dolls - that's their stupid parenting, not their sexuality. There are parents out there who won't let girls play with cars or boys wear pink or (insert stupid gender role stereotype here) but that is their ignorance, not their sexuality.
Yes, human nature does have certain characteristics that can't be barred - like finding and giving affection, nurturing offspring, pair-bonding and sexual experience - homo, hetero or whatever combination thereof that suits the individual.

Life is difficult for children - *NEWSFLASH* - that has been the case for centuries if said children want to live differently to their parents. Religion, sexuality, politics, whatever - these are all sources of contention between parents and children.

I don't forget that I am my kids first role model and in that role, I choose to show them and encourage them that being different is something to revel in, not be ashamed of. If you enforce blending in as part of your parenting, all you do is create an individual who is constantly weighing their own worth against popular opinion, which (IMO) makes for an insecure person who is always chasing the latest trend. Encourage them to enjoy being the weirdo and you build someone who is confident in themself as a person and not reliant on the opinion of strangers.

Nobody who can prove that they can provide a loving, nurturing home should be banned from adoption on the basis of who they have sex with.
It is the women that is getting the children. Due to that fact there is a special bound between them and the child.I am assuming you mean "bond" there. The special bond that exists between a parent and child it has nothing to do with the sex of the parent - it has to do with which parent spends more time with the child when it is very young.
Of course there are differences between men and women but this is not what the thread is about.

An isolated case, does not a point make.Fair point, but I would add my experience to this. I am bi. My daughter has seen me with boyfriends, girlfriends and in poly relationships. At 16 she, too is happily hetero and mono. She says she has no issues with other relationship styles but has decided that this particular one suits her right now. My 4 year old, on the other hand, who has only ever seen me in a hetero relationship with her father has been telling us for over a year that she is going to have girlfriends as well as boyfriends. If what you are exposed to by your parents determines orientation, there would be no gay people. Argument defeated...
Oh the petty arguments of a hateful heart
Homosexuality is just another 'degree' of perversion,just as bestiality and pornography!Do I need to comment?

I am also against having gay people in positions where they are near kidsYes, because we all know that only and all homosexual people are pedos and are just waiting for you to leave your kid with them :rolleyes: Idiot.

What I really don't understand is why two people kissing is such a big deal? I am assuming that this occurred in the US - is affection such a terrible thing there? I think it is a wonderful thing for kids to see people in love and being affectionate. The more the better, they see too much hate and aggression as it is. Why should affection be demonised?

He... remind me of a time I was with my dad in London. There was a gay rights protest on at the time and as you'd expect there were some guys kissing. He said something along the lines of "These faggots make me sick, shoving their perverted sexual practices down everybody's throats". But I don't see why he has to be that way. They're not doing any harm and giving them more rights doesn't affect me in any way. If they marry it doesn't bother me. Dad often goes on about how deviant he thinks they are. Such a macho idiot, and he often takes the piss out of me for sympathising with them. Probably why he does stuff like forces me to play sports, ect.

Why do people have to be so uptight and prejudiced? If everybody just accepted everybody else's lifestyle choices it'd be a far more relaxed society.

Again you + post count.

And you are also apparently incapable of understanding basic English as well...

I am just trying to encourage you to prevent even the smallest scrap of evidence for any of your diatribes.

I would love to debate with you...

At the moment, however, it feels like a 'battle of wits' with you, would be like a swordfight with a quadraplegic.

Well, it's the first three that are most important for this argument. Specifically, Article 1 Section 8 contains all of the powers of Congress, and Article 2 Section 2 contains all of the powers of the President.

Good arguement, very good. but i choose to use the 10th ammendment which clearly states that if a power is not denied to the state gov and is not included in the federal gov. powers then it shall be granted to the state gov. but it is already denied to the states therefore it is rendered null in this situation.

He... remind me of a time I was with my dad in London. There was a gay rights protest on at the time and as you'd expect there were some guys kissing. He said something along the lines of "These faggots make me sick, shoving their perverted sexual practices down everybody's throats". But I don't see why he has to be that way. They're not doing any harm and giving them more rights doesn't affect me in any way. If they marry it doesn't bother me. Dad often goes on about how deviant he thinks they are. Such a macho idiot, and he often takes the piss out of me for sympathising with them. Probably why he does stuff like forces me to play sports, ect.

Why do people have to be so uptight and prejudiced? If everybody just accepted everybody else's lifestyle choices it'd be a far more relaxed society.

Excellent post.

Unfortunately, some people would make THEIR private beliefs into the law of a nation, by force, if they could.

Thankfully, it seems that the tide is (very slowly) changing.

Indeed it is. It's a shame so many people have so little understanding of the workings of their government. Regardless of our disagreement here, please know that I hold you in very high regards for that statement!

Thank you, and I you. For this is a wonderful thing to agree on.

If everybody just accepted everybody else's lifestyle choices it'd be a far more relaxed society.Er... Not all lifestyle choices can be condoned. Pedos :sniper: for instance, are fair targets as far as I am concerned. But consenting adult relationships? You're right. As far as I am concerned, they are nobody's business but the people involved in them.

Guess what, there are gay people, there are straight people, there are people who only want to be with another person and don't even look at gender.

The thing is, we're all in this world together. There's no reason why a child should be BLOCKED from seeing something like that. It's something that happens, and there will be times that a child will see something like that and there will be no one to explain it.

How hard would it have been for that man to loko at his child and say, "They're homosexual. That man, likes men, not women. They like each other the same why I like your mother" If at all the boy had a mother. For all you know, the boy's father was gay and hadn't come out to his child.


If you've got a problem with it, then know this:

YOU weren't one of those gay people kissing, so you don't have to be embaressed that you LOVE for another human being was on display.
YOU weren't that boy's father, so the boy hopefully won't turn out as narrow-minded as you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply note that you have your own opinion and I respect that no matter what.
YOU don't have to be involved in the situations at all, so shut up about it because there just ARE gay people in the world, just like there are straight people.

The point is we're all people no matter what or who we like.

However, I find it equally reprehensible to force churches to marry gay couples, as that is a form of affirmative action.
And worse... a breach of the wall of separation. You're right and I don't support that, because I'm against affirmative action and certainly in favour of separating church and state. I just think that gays should be able to get married and call it marriage, and good luck if they can find a church that will wed them. They deserve all the same chances that hetero couples get.

At least someone here is somewhat aware of the evils of the "homosexuals." These savage beasts roam the earth, seeking the ruination of souls, and the destruction of Divine order. Filthy "homosexuals" ought to receive their just punishment...

I have really seen enough of this from you. If you cannot debate in a civilised manner, your access to this forum may be revoked.
You can consider yourself warned.

The whole Gay marrage thing has always confused me because I've never heard a reasonable, non-religious argument against it, but it's still getting band in a buch of states. Seperation of church and state anyone? I thought America was the "Land of the Free".

Society is built on universal truths. If being gay were a universal truth then the world would die in one generation.......
There are no universal truths. Everyone is different.

By the way: every time an American complains about how another person pursues his own happiness, a Founding Father turns in his grave.
Damn, the founding fathers' skeletons must be worn to dust at this stage!

Homosexuals are not a positive or a negative influence. They are no better than anyone else, and certainly no worse. That's my opinion, anyway.

The whole Gay marrage thing has always confused me because I've never heard a reasonable, non-religious argument against it, but it's still getting band in a buch of states. Seperation of church and state anyone? I thought America was the "Land of the Free".
You've never heard reasonable arguments against it because there are none. It's a political position of pure ignorance, hatred and bigotry.

in my oppinion Marriage is not a right, it is a privalege!
Why is marriage not a right? If the federal or state government decided to ban heterosexual marriage I can imagine you would be among the loudest in denoucing this "attack on my rights" (as would I). You claim to love freedom and be a civil libertarian, so surely you would be in favour of allowing marriage as a right. It's the most libertarian position.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

well what can you say to that... well that wont get me banned anyway, i would like to say con gratulation to the two men here, they were brave enough to show their love for each other in public.


I've a question to ask to Amall Madnar and all his ahem.. supporters (that the word i can use and not get banned?? right?), would you have argued this is bad if it was 2 women kissing???

Oh to that post that joking about left hander being evil......IM LEFT HANDED. I'm not evil.

Anyway good luck keeping you future kids out of the light of reality Amall Madnar. if we meat i'm sure to blow you a kiss :D and with that i'l wait and see. i salute you two men in this story for being brave.

You gay-haters make me sick. Infact, you make me angry, with the same killing rage that some of you must have for homosexuals. bigots :gundge: "they" are just people like you and me. Who says you have the right to judge them? noone, so don't think that you have divine authority to decide what is ultimately good and what is ultimately evil. There are no ultimate good and evils, only the actions, situations and objects that you define in your mind as "good" or "evil".

Society is not built on universal truths. :headbang: Homosexuality is also in come cases, evolutinary, thereby invalidating the entire anti-gay "it's not natural" argument, because yes, it is natural. [source] (http://www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/Werner/Werner20.24.htm) There are many articles about homosexual behaviour in the anamal kingdom.

Ignorant, socially-retarded, unenlightened rednecks are MUCH worse than men or women who choose to persue love with the same sex.

"God" help us if any of you bigots breed, the gene pool will be further destroyed....the poster of this thread really should peform the rest of us a valuble service and darwinize themselves.

slow down there. proclaim yourself a hater of gay haters and you proclaim that its alright to hate a social group cos of who they are. your just as bad as they are!!! or so i have been told. surely we can just live side by side? ha ha ha. ok enough of that. heres the thing, im in no way against gays, but gay marriage is a stupid concept. Marriage is a religious thing, and when that religion specificly states rightly or wrongly that homosexuality is a sin, its ridiculous that it then joins them under god. A true Gay christian would understand that Christian gay marriage is a contradiction in terms.

slow down there. proclaim yourself a hater of gay haters and you proclaim that its alright to hate a social group cos of who they are. your just as bad as they are!!! or so i have been told. surely we can just live side by side? ha ha ha. ok enough of that. heres the thing, im in no way against gays, but gay marriage is a stupid concept. Marriage is a religious thing, and when that religion specificly states rightly or wrongly that homosexuality is a sin, its ridiculous that it then joins them under god. A true Gay christian would understand that Christian gay marriage is a contradiction in terms.

here is my view on gay marriage....
as you said it the religous side of it does not apply I used to be a christian but learnt the being gay was not welcome there... but how many hertro relationships does it apply to??? It is the spiritual side of it that i see, its the chance to say to the world this is the one for me, the commitment that i wish to spend the rest of my life the man i love like any other couple (i know that sounds like the same point), one day i would like to got on 1 knee and prepose (sp??) to my boyfriend and yes the same benifits as hertro married couples. is that too wrong???

heres the thing, im in no way against gays, but gay marriage is a stupid concept. Marriage is a religious thing, and when that religion specificly states rightly or wrongly that homosexuality is a sin, its ridiculous that it then joins them under god. A true Gay christian would understand that Christian gay marriage is a contradiction in terms.

I agree with you as far as Christians go. But what about buddhists? What about protestants and Anglicans? What about those Churches(and they exist) who DO want to marry homosexuals? Here in Canada, the United Church of Canada was performing blessings on homosexual unions before gay marriage was even legal.

My question is: how dare you all strip those churches of their freedom of religion? Banning gay marriage is infringing on their rights, just as much as forcing all churches to perform it would. The only correct course of action to protect freedom of religion is to legalize gay marriage, but let each Church and religious organization decide for itself whether it wants to celebrate it or not.

You've never heard reasonable arguments against it because there are none. It's a political position of pure ignorance, hatred and bigotry.


Why is marriage not a right? If the federal or state government decided to ban heterosexual marriage I can imagine you would be among the loudest in denoucing this "attack on my rights" (as would I). You claim to love freedom and be a civil libertarian, so surely you would be in favour of allowing marriage as a right. It's the most libertarian position.

dont tell me what to believe. i have a right to my own oppinions as do you.

Yes it would have been so much easier to have a small boy witness two men fighting in public than showing affection, wouldn't it?
yes

My question is: how dare you all strip those churches of their freedom of religion? Banning gay marriage is infringing on their rights, just as much as forcing all churches to perform it would. The only correct course of action to protect freedom of religion is to legalize gay marriage, but let each Church and religious organization decide for itself whether it wants to celebrate it or not.

Oh noes! Somebody who's making sense!
Run! Run!, we shall, from the burning and the smiting and the righteous logic and the....
*mumble mumble*
*dribble*

"Time for your meds, Mr. _____"
"Oh, right then."
:p

Everyone is entitled to their own oppinions. Why do people try to force others to believe what they think is right, only our lord and savior know. But what i do know is that on some level we're all ignorant uninlightened rednecks. Others may refuse to believe this but then why can they not accept the fact that some people are against gay marriage and others aren't i disagree with it and think it is wrong. but aren't you just as wrong as i am when your'e trying to change and prove that my oppinions are wrong? Please stop accusing those who have so called "wrong" oppinions cause their oppinions are just as valid as yours. Invalid and Petty in the eyes of God.

yes
jesus would not approve

What part of 'go back to iran' dont you understand?

Hey, fucktard, we don't want him. We don't want our mullas either...but, nvm

Oh noes! Somebody who's making sense!
Run! Run!, we shall, from the burning and the smiting and the righteous logic and the....
*mumble mumble*
*dribble*

"Time for your meds, Mr. _____"
"Oh, right then."
:p
this has to be a first religous logic being used to promote gay marrage, so leave him alone proffesser fruit-loop

I don't agree with the whole idea of same sex relationships in any form. I just keep thinking this so that I wont say anything to anyone of them. They can't procreate so eventually they wont be able to multiply.

Darwinism at its best.

My question is: how dare you all strip those churches of their freedom of religion? Banning gay marriage is infringing on their rights, just as much as forcing all churches to perform it would. The only correct course of action to protect freedom of religion is to legalize gay marriage, but let each Church and religious organization decide for itself whether it wants to celebrate it or not.

My answer? Any church that is based on teachings that state that homosexuality is wrong, including Christianity, Islam and Judasim (the new big three) (i dont no bout the other religions teachings) should not have gay marriage. otherwise, why do they even bother pretending to believe in the faith. sure they can start a new one, but there can be no christian gay marriages, because god said homosexuality is wrong.

I also think that a real religion has absolute rules. If a god possess knowledge of good and evil, he would lay down rules to live by, as he did. He would not say everyone has a point of view.

And, I see buddhism as more a philosophy of life, not so much a religion. religion has gods. buddhism dont.

i may seem really religious, but, im agnostic. just so u no

I don't agree with the whole idea of same sex relationships in any form. I just keep thinking this so that I wont say anything to anyone of them. They can't procreate so eventually they wont be able to multiply.

Darwinism at its best.

Yep. Because we all know that the first homosexuals were created via spontaneous generation from a pile of tasteful curtains.... yep.

Memo to H22a - heterosexual pairings can produce homosexual offspring. Also, Dawinism offers various useful purposes (evolution-wise) for an over-populated species like us to have a proportion of homosexuals individuals.

You've never heard reasonable arguments against it because there are none. It's a political position of pure ignorance, hatred and bigotry.


Why is marriage not a right? If the federal or state government decided to ban heterosexual marriage I can imagine you would be among the loudest in denoucing this "attack on my rights" (as would I). You claim to love freedom and be a civil libertarian, so surely you would be in favour of allowing marriage as a right. It's the most libertarian position.

News flash! why not move to Spain they're conservative and Religious (mainly Catholic). They are Capitalists much like America. I would protest first in America but i hold true to my oppinions.

Yep. Because we all know that the first homosexuals were created via spontaneous generation from a pile of tasteful curtains.... yep.

Memo to H22a - heterosexual pairings can produce homosexual offspring. Also, Dawinism offers various useful purposes (evolution-wise) for an over-populated species like us to have a proportion of homosexuals individuals.
Yeah but those are the same kids that get the shit beat out of them at school. But, all I am saying now is that is my belief on the whole subject and honestly I couldn't give 2 shits or a fuck what yall think about me or my beliefs.

Dawinism offers various useful purposes (evolution-wise) for an over-populated species like us to have a proportion of homosexuals individuals.

Sorry, what purposes? offer helpful fashion tips for the procreating part? seriously, what purposes? i ask in the spirit of intellectual discovery by the way. over population is supposed to occur, it allows the strong to survive. its a vital part of evolution

this has to be a first religous logic being used to promote gay marrage, so leave him alone proffesser fruit-loop

I'd say he was agrreing with me, and using sarcasm and wit to try to add humor to his point. If you reread him, you can see he basically says he can't argue the logic of my post. At least that's how I took it.

Sorry, what purposes? offer helpful fashion tips for the procreating part? seriously, what purposes? i ask in the spirit of intellectual discovery by the way
That is hilarious. But it makes since, what are they going to do? Tell me that my clothes don't match?

If all you're going to do is state your opinions, please STFU, this is a forum.

Not a place to state beliefs then not discuss them.

I will discuss my beliefs on this forum. All I was saying was that I don't care what anyone thinks about them b/c I wont be swayed.

My answer? Any church that is based on teachings that state that homosexuality is wrong, including Christianity, Islam and Judasim (the new big three) (i dont no bout the other religions teachings) should not have gay marriage.

We certainly agree on that point. Churches and religions who condemn gay relationships should be free to refuse to perform same-sex marriage, just as they are free to refuse to perform any marriage for reasons they deem fit. However, for religions to be able to freely chose, there must be a choice to be made: banning it altogether removes that choice from the religious organization, and gives the power of decision to the state or federal government.



otherwise, why do they even bother pretending to believe in the faith. sure they can start a new one, but there can be no christian gay marriages, because god said homosexuality is wrong.

I also think that a real religion has absolute rules. If a god possess knowledge of good and evil, he would lay down rules to live by, as he did. He would not say everyone has a point of view.

And, I see buddhism as more a philosophy of life, not so much a religion. religion has gods. buddhism dont.

i may seem really religious, but, im agnostic. just so u no

I don't quite see where you're going with this. I may be mistaken, but I get the feeling you're saying any religion who does not condemn homosexuality are not "real" religions. Certainly I'm not reading you right?

Because if that's what's you're really saying, I'd answer that you're just the same as all those Muslim fanatics(only the fanatics, mind you) who says that the only real religion is their own. If you're not ready to accept the fact that other religions exists besides your own, and that their beliefs are as "real" and valid as yours, then you're too subjective for me to bother arguing with you.

Sorry, what purposes? offer helpful fashion tips for the procreating part? seriously, what purposes? i ask in the spirit of intellectual discovery by the way. over population is supposed to occur, it allows the strong to survive. its a vital part of evolution

Well, one theory (which I like, and hence remember) is that homosexual couples reduce the strain on an over-populated civilisation... they don't reproduce directly, but still contribute resources to the society, and in the wild could act as extra child-minders. They can help raise the young of others (keep in mind that humans are social animals, and so it wouldn't be that weird... just think of things like childcare centres. Like that, only not as organised in the wild).

Over population may be 'vital' from one sense, but I suspect you're thinking of non-social animals. In cases like humans, it's in the best interests of the species that *societies* stay strong, not just individuals.

Sorry, what purposes? offer helpful fashion tips for the procreating part? seriously, what purposes? i ask in the spirit of intellectual discovery by the way. over population is supposed to occur, it allows the strong to survive. its a vital part of evolution

Like I said before, contribution to society and the human race as a whole is not limited to creating offsprings. Doctors, teachers, artists... If human's only goal in life was to procreate, then we'd be animals, plain and simple. We wouldn't be building cities, taking care of our elderly, caring for the sick... Those are all tasks that gays, just like heteros(and notably those heteros without children) can accomplish.

I'm not saying we don't need children: I'm saying there is more to life than just creating them. Seriously, if you're a parent, and the only good and productive thing in life you've ever done is give birth, well... perhaps you should have tried to get a little bit more out of your life. I'm certain nobody's goal in life is to "just have two or three kids and then retire and not do anything useful for the next couple of decades", so to speak.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

I originally wasn't going to answer to this thread, but out of curiousity, I opened it, and I had to say something. Excuse me for not reading any of the replies.

"Because they love eachother". That's the answer. I don't care if it's abnormal, against the laws of nature, whatever you say it is, although I don't agree with you on those points, first of all, it doesn't affect you. Sexuality is inborn, not chosen. If you say otherwise, than there was a point where you were attracted to both genders, because in order to chose you need to have, well, choices, and it's not a choice if there's only one option. seeing a homosexual couple is not going to make a heterosexual couple not want to get married, although I'd be willing to bet that homosexual couples will have a lower divorce rate. I mean, really. Is heterosexual marriage all that... sacred? Over HALF of marriages end in divorce, MORE than that have or will experience infedelity. Secondly, don't make the mistake of assuming that all homosexuality or bisexuality is about sex. Is your sexuality all about sex? Have you ever loved someone? Romantically? What makes you think someone of a different sexual orientation would be any different?
I could go on and on, but I'm going to spare you, because more than likely, you've been given enough responses, and people have probably already said the things I have to say, but I would feel horrible if I didn't reply. So my last point is that it's really not your place to say what someone can or cannot do with their bodies, and it's not your place to say what someone can or cannot do with their hearts. I don't care WHAT God you may or may not serve, if that God is JUST, He would see more offense in denying someone the right to love, and love fully, because that is ultimately what marriage is supposed to be about, than in a bodily instinct, i.e. sexuality, especially one that is NOT chosen. Bleh. May whatever God is out there if there IS a God, help us all.

I don't quite see where you're going with this. I may be mistaken, but I get the feeling you're saying any religion who does not condemn homosexuality are not "real" religions. Certainly I'm not reading you right?


No, im simply saying that for a religion to qualify as such in my book, it has to have absolute laws about morality, what is right and what is wrong. I suppose its unlikely a religion would state homosexuality is absolutly right, as it does not contribute to the continuation of the species, but, that doesnt mean religion is right. i dont believe in a religion or absolute morality, i just feel religion should b absolute. i dont think religion is right



Well, one theory (which I like, and hence remember) is that homosexual couples reduce the strain on an over-populated civilisation... they don't reproduce directly, but still contribute resources to the society, and in the wild could act as extra child-minders. They can help raise the young of others (keep in mind that humans are social animals, and so it wouldn't be that weird... just think of things like childcare centres. Like that, only not as organised in the wild).

Over population may be 'vital' from one sense, but I suspect you're thinking of non-social animals. In cases like humans, it's in the best interests of the species that *societies* stay strong, not just individuals.

I see. does this occur in chimps or anything, because that would be good to see. Problem is, Human beings defy darwinism. In our society the weak continue to survive, so evolution no longer works with us.

*laughs hysterically at the prudish intolerant retrograde mastodon*

*laughs hysterically at the person who thinks using intelectual words makes him seem smarter* Just to let you know, laughing at someone who has a moral belive doesn't make him any less intelligent that you are. Infact, i have all the respect in the world for someone who challenges the popular opinion on a base of morals.

I see. does this occur in chimps or anything, because that would be good to see. Problem is, Human beings defy darwinism. In our society the weak continue to survive, so evolution no longer works with us.

To be totally honest, I've been avoiding gay-marriage debates for so long, I can't really remember. If it has been observed, it'd probably be in bonobos... those crazy chimps. But I can't say with anything even resembling 100% certainty.

And I'm pretty sure evolution still affects us. Not as much, I'll conceed... but you still hear of isolated areas producing postive mutations, and that whole thing about us getting taller on average... sure sounds like evolution to me ;)

Like I said before, contribution to society and the human race as a whole is not limited to creating offsprings. Doctors, teachers, artists... If human's only goal in life was to procreate, then we'd be animals, plain and simple. We wouldn't be building cities, taking care of our elderly, caring for the sick... Those are all tasks that gays, just like heteros(and notably those heteros without children) can accomplish.

I'm not saying we don't need children: I'm saying there is more to life than just creating them. Seriously, if you're a parent, and the only good and productive thing in life you've ever done is give birth, well... perhaps you should have tried to get a little bit more out of your life. I'm certain nobody's goal in life is to "just have two or three kids and then retire and not do anything useful for the next couple of decades", so to speak.

Much though i hate to make sweeping generalisations, i will do so now. The only purpose of life is to survive. and to survive we do not need civ. we just need a large gene pool, so, overpopulation. intelligence is not a necessary trait for survival. life was not working towards it, otherwise other intelligent life forms would have evolved. it took us 65 million years to evolve. prokaryotic life has existed for billions of years

And I'm pretty sure evolution still affects us. Not as much, I'll conceed... but you still hear of isolated areas producing postive mutations, and that whole thing about us getting taller on average... sure sounds like evolution to me ;)

lol, ok. I must resort to my defination of evolution. mutation leads to variation within a gene pool. leads to natural selection and Over time we get speciation, and then evolution. Evolution means new species. were not a diferent species and Its likely that if we survive for a million years, we will be much the same as we are now, as we no longer are getting natural selection. So, were not really evolving, were just getting mutations

No, im simply saying that for a religion to qualify as such in my book, it has to have absolute laws about morality, what is right and what is wrong. I suppose its unlikely a religion would state homosexuality is absolutly right, as it does not contribute to the continuation of the species, but, that doesnt mean religion is right. i dont believe in a religion or absolute morality, i just feel religion should b absolute. i dont think religion is right


Okay, good, I'm relieved to realize I had you wrong. I also agree with you, up to a point. I personally would not encourage a religion that stated that homosexuality was the only possible and good path, any more than I do not encourage those religions who state that heterosexuality is the only one and good path. However, even if religions should be absolute in their morals, that doesn't mean their morals have to care about sexual orientation.

For example, the United Church of Canada, which I mentionned earlier, is still very absolute in it's notions of right and wrong. It just doesn't bother trying to define which sexual orientations are good or bad, because it doesn't consider sexual orientation a determining factor. They profess that loving and being faithful to your husband/wife is good, but they just don't care to specify which of a husband/wife you can have or not have.





I see. does this occur in chimps or anything, because that would be good to see. Problem is, Human beings defy darwinism. In our society the weak continue to survive, so evolution no longer works with us.

Up to a point, yes. There have been cases of lesbian dolphin pairings adopting youngs whose parents had died, for example. And I know I watched a documentary that mentionned that gay chimps served as guards or sentinels, keeping watch for the tribe because they didn,t have to hunt for kids or care for them.

As for evolution no longer working for us, well, that's what we get for elevating ourselves over our animal station. For better or for worse, I don't think we'll ever know.

Much though i hate to make sweeping generalisations, i will do so now. The only purpose of life is to survive. and to survive we do not need civ. we just need a large gene pool, so, overpopulation. intelligence is not a necessary trait for survival. life was not working towards it, otherwise other intelligent life forms would have evolved. it took us 65 million years to evolve. prokaryotic life has existed for billions of years

Now I feel like we're straying from the debate. But just for the sake of thoroughness...

1. The only purpose of life is to survive.

I disagree with that, because I believe that's a purely animalistic point of view. We humans seem(on our good days) to have somewhat transcended animal nature. I am in complete disagreement that the only purpose to life is to survive: at least, that is not the only purpose of MY life. You could word it differently to make me agree: "One of the most important purposes in life is to survive", for example.

2. Overpopulation does not provide a larger gene pool. To get a larger gene pool, we would simply have to diversify our breeding (which we're doing, by the way. And yes, I know it sounds cold and uncaring stated that way). Asians, Caucasians, Blacks, Whites, Europeans and Middle Easterners: opening our borders and letting go of the taboos about interracial/intercultural unions producing children provide much better chances of having a larger gene pool than overpopulation. Honestly, overpopulation is only providing us with an overabundance of the same genes, which are mostly the Chinese's and the Indian's gene pool.

3. Intelligence IS a necessary trait for survival. For us, as well as for ANY animal on this planet. You want proof? Go ahead and try to release a few chickens and hens out in nature. Those things are so dumb they likely won't survive for more than an hour. I'd even go as far as say: Intelligence is the BEST trait to ensure survival. Otherwise, how would we puny humans have survived the attacks of animals much stronger and fiercer than we are? The only edge we have over those tigers and gorillas is our BRAIN, and let me tell you it has served us VERY well so far.

.


Sure, wasn't hitler gay?

You forgot? It's "allowing superior gay WHITE men". This must be the broadened prospective you were talking about. Now inform me how this heterosexual bashing helps your cause? Hmmmmmmmmmm, it don't do it?




hitler wasn't gay, maybe a bit bi/questioning right after ww1 but not gay. no , i was the gay one, and the nazis never really persecuted gays until they murdered me.

well of course i meant gay white men, but we would encourage the other races to follow our noble example and allow their own homosexuals to lead them. the principles are the same even in the least advanced groups.

*coughbumpcough*

Just to stir the pot a bit ;)

Here's a complete article from the Time Magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,23309,00.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gay Side of Nature


Even as moralists and activists continue to debate homosexuality, many
species casually practice it

BY JEFFREY KLUGER

Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Humans
beings--a lot of them anyway--like to do it too, but of all the planet's
species, they're the only ones who are oppressed when they try.

What humans share with so many other animals, it now appears, is
freewheeling homosexuality. For centuries opponents of gay rights have
seen same-gender sex as a uniquely human phenomenon, one of the many ways
our famously corruptible species flouts the laws of nature. But nature's
morality, it seems, may be remarkably flexible, at least if the new book
Biological Exuberance (St. Martin's Press), by linguist and cognitive
scientist Bruce Bagemihl, is to be believed. According to Bagemihl, the
animal kingdom is a more sexually complex place than most people know--one
where couplings routinely take place not just between male-female pairs
but also between male-male and female-female ones. What's more, same-sex
partners don't meet merely for brief encounters, but may form long-term
bonds, sometimes mating for years or even for life.

Bagemihl's ideas have caused a stir in the higher, human community,
especially among scientists who find it simplistic to equate any animal
behavior with human behavior. But Bagemihl stands behind the findings,
arguing that if homosexuality comes naturally to other creatures, perhaps
it's time to quit getting into such a lather over the fact that it comes
naturally to humans too. "Animal sexuality is more complex than we
imagined," says Bagemihl. "That diversity is part of human heritage."

For a love that long dared not speak its name, animal homosexuality is
astonishingly common. Scouring zoological journals and conducting
extensive interviews with scientists, Bagemihl found same-sex pairings
documented in more than 450 different species. In a world teeming with
more than 1 million species, that may not seem like much. Animals,
however, can be surprisingly prim about when and under whose prying eye
they engage in sexual activity; as few as 2,000 species have thus been
observed closely enough to reveal their full range of coupling behavior.
Within such a small sampling, 450 represents more than 20%.

That 20% may spend its time lustily or quite tenderly. Among bonobos, a
chimplike ape, homosexual pairings account for as much as 50% of all
sexual activity. Females especially engage in repeated acts of same-sex
sex, spending far more than the 12 or so seconds the whole transaction can
take when a randy male is involved. Male giraffes practice necking--
literally--in a very big way, entwining their long bodies until both
partners become sexually aroused. Heterosexual and homosexual dolphin
pairs engage in face-to-face sexual encounters that look altogether human.
Animals as diverse as elephants and rodents practice same-sex mounting,
and macaques raise that affection ante further, often kissing while
assuming a coital position. Same-gender sexual activity, says Bagemihl,
"encompasses a wide range of forms."

What struck Bagemihl most is those forms that go beyond mere sexual
gratification. Humboldt penguins may have homosexual unions that last six
years; male greylag geese may stay paired for 15 years--a lifetime
commitment when you've got the lifespan of a goose. Bears and some other
mammals may bring their young into homosexual unions, raising them with
their same-sex partner just as they would with a member of the opposite
sex.

But witnessing same-sex activity and understanding it are two different
things, and some experts believe observers like Bagemihl are misreading
the evidence. In species that lack sophisticated language--which is to say
all species but ours--sex serves many nonsexual purposes, including
establishing alliances and appeasing enemies, all things animals must do
with members of both sexes. "Sexuality helps animals maneuver around each
other before making real contact," says Martin Daly, an evolutionary
psychologist at McMaster University in Ontario. "Putting all that into a
homosexual category seems simplistic."

Even if some animals do engage in homosexual activity purely for pleasure,
their behavior still serves as an incomplete model--and an incomplete
explanation--for human behavior. "In our society homosexuality means a
principal or exclusive orientation," says psychology professor Frans de
Waal of the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta. "Among animals it's just
nonreproductive sexual behavior."

Whether any of this turns out to be good for the gay and lesbian community
is unclear. While the new findings seem to support the idea that
homosexuality is merely a natural form of sexual expression, Bagemihl
believes such political questions may be beside the point. "We shouldn't
have to look to the animal world to see what's normal or ethical," he
says. Indeed, when it comes to answering those questions, Mother Nature
seems to be keeping an open mind. END

And here's something about those evil same sex couples raising offspring:
http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/18/gay.vulture.parents/index.html
Gay birds of a feather parent together at Israeli zoo
vultures
Dashik and Yahuda, two male vultures, have raised two baby birds

CNN's Jerrold Kessel reports on a surprising development in a program to reintroduce vultures to the wild in Israel.

September 18, 1999
Web posted at: 7:24 p.m. EDT (2324 GMT)

From Correspondent Jerrold Kessel

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Zoo keepers involved in an ambitious breeding program for endangered Griffin vultures are getting a helping hand from a vulture couple that, ironically, doesn't breed.

Keepers noticed that Dashik and Yahuda, two male vultures at Jerusalem Biblical Zoo, had built a nest together and were mating. So they decided to give the couple an artificial egg to see what would happen.

"They were sitting incubating perfectly," said the zoo's head keeper, Itzik Yadid. "If they are incubating so good, sharing between the two of them, the next step will be obviously to give them a chick to raise."

So far, Dashik and Yahuda have raised two baby birds, Diva and Adi Gordon, with results that exceeded expectations

"We're very proud of them. We think they've done a marvelous job," said bird keeper Sharon Sterling. "They've behaved extremely well, the best parents we've ever seen."

Keepers had initially thought about separating Dashik and Yahuda and trying to bring in a female to create a heterosexual vulture couple.
vultures
Dashik and Yahuda were given a chick to raise after they were given an artificial egg to incubate

"And then we said, 'Why should we do it? If they are together, if they are raising a chick together, why should we separate them?'" Yadid said. "So we decided to let them stay together and keep raising chicks together."

There is a reason beyond mere curiosity for seeking parenting help from the gay vultures. Normally, female Griffin vultures lay only one egg a year. But if the egg is taken from the mother, she will lay a second egg, a process known as "double clutching."

So by providing suitable surrogate parents for the eggs that are taken, bird keepers can increase the number of vultures that are bred.

Griffin vultures, once a common sight in the Mideast, have nearly disappeared. The zoo is trying to reintroduce them through the breeding program.


Note: This is irrelevant, really, but - I'd be willing to bet that homosexual couples will have a lower divorce rate. What makes you think someone of a different sexual orientation would be any different?Inconsistency within one paragraph, anyone? :D Just bein' picky. :D

My thanks for providing sources and sound material that backs my claims, but that I was too lazy to look up :)

Breeders will always breed, because it is their nature. The homosexual free from the burden of procreation and child rearing will always lead, in art, literature, politics , all the fields which require a focused will. this will is lost in the concerns of conventional family life. that is why i believe, inorder to save the aryan race from destruction, it must be lead by an elite cadre of dedicated homosexuals. thus i present The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual National Socialist Workingperson's Party.

The LGBNSWP, huh?

The LGBNSWP, huh?

Yeah, I want to be head of that party. So I can scrap the part about white supremacy.

The rest of it sounds good though.

The LGBNSWP, huh?

or just the queer nazi party for short(i wanted to call it either the gay nazis boys or the rainbow racist alliance, but certain trendy so and sos on the central committee wanted to capitalize on a certain popular cable show so...)

Yeah, I want to be head of that party. So I can scrap the part about white supremacy.

The rest of it sounds good though.

no, if not for the racism we might just as well be a leatherboy book of the month club.

Actually, I believe his disease is called analocuphelia. It's a mentally debilitating condition caused by having ones own vision obscured by their anus.

Dude, homosexuality does not spread. It's not a disease.

And an explanation would not be that hard, to one capable of rudimentary thought. I of course know, unfortuneately, such is much to ask from humans in general. But neither my wife, nor I, would have a problem explaining it to our child.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.
Oh, dear Fanged God, no. Please save us from the two men kissing. Save us from the man and woman kissing in public, too. Sedate displays of affection have no place in public life.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?
"They are showing affection for each other, like when Mommy and I kiss."

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!
*shrugs* Chaste kisses on the cheeks are standard fare in Europe, and have been for hundreds of years. There's nothing wrong with mild public displays of affection, whether they be representative of a deeper sexual or Platonic bond, or merely a gesture of close friendship. It's like the "Frodo and Samwise are gay" foolishness a few months ago--people read far too much into simple gestures.

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!
Teach... what... shit? Most kids learn about sexuality and alt-sexuality in school anyway, and have for generations from the Older and Wiser Kids. I remember being called gay ever since first grade because I would tend to hold hands with my best friend--gesture of close friendship. I'm straight, but back then I had no idea what they were talking about, and no idea about sexuality at all.

People think, act, and love in different ways. If it's between consenting adults and it isn't forced on anyone else ("You WILL be straight/gay/bi/what-have-you") then what right do I, or anyone else for the matter, claim moral superiority for our own brand of sexuality?

So far though, I like the debate. Very cordial, educated, and very little of the obnoxiousness such things often bring. Good work. ^_^

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/scolopendra/hapc-scolo.gif Hearty Aerospace Pirate Cap'n Scolo

no, if not for the racism we might just as well be a leatherboy book of the month club.

Do you have anything about leatherboy book of the month clubs?


...



And who the Hell are you to question my HOLY ENLIGHETENED SUPREME GAY RAINBOW AUTHORITY?


You shall be punished. I just have to think of something gay and painful. I'm thinking bare-assed spanking, but I'll entertain suggestions, just in case somebody thinks of something more appropriate.

Breeders will always breed, because it is their nature. The homosexual free from the burden of procreation and child rearing will always lead, in art, literature, politics , all the fields which require a focused will. this will is lost in the concerns of conventional family life. that is why i believe, inorder to save the aryan race from destruction, it must be lead by an elite cadre of dedicated homosexuals. thus i present The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual National Socialist Workingperson's Party.
Interesting thought... but I'm not too sure it'd work in the long run, seeing how all the "Aryans" would be gay and thus wouldn't breed, and thus would tend to decrease like most other social groups which literally banned procreation (i.e. Shakers, Bugeres) ... thus defeating the stated purpose of the white power/Aryan movement (14 Words).

But an interesting thought, nonetheless. Bonus points for creativity. ;)

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/scolopendra/hapc-scolo.gif Hearty Aerospace Pirate Cap'n Scolo

Interesting thought... but I'm not too sure it'd work in the long run, seeing how all the "Aryans" would be gay and thus wouldn't breed, and thus would tend to decrease like most other social groups which literally banned procreation (i.e. Shakers, Bugeres) ... thus defeating the stated purpose of the white power/Aryan movement (14 Words).

But an interesting thought, nonetheless. Bonus points for creativity. ;)

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/scolopendra/hapc-scolo.gif Hearty Aerospace Pirate Cap'n Scolo

Like I said, he says gays should rule, and he hasn't thus far stated his own gayness. So that basically means if I adhere to his party, I'll be the enlightened leader, and when that happens we scrap the part about the Aryan race and white supremacy.

I mean, who would want to forget all those cute gay asian pretty boys? Or those athletic and well-endowed(or so I'm told) black-skinned gays? Or those Kama-Sutra knowing gay Indians? I love diversity, so when I'm in charge nobody's going to be getting favor treatment.

lol, ok. I must resort to my defination of evolution. mutation leads to variation within a gene pool. leads to natural selection and Over time we get speciation, and then evolution. Evolution means new species. were not a diferent species and Its likely that if we survive for a million years, we will be much the same as we are now, as we no longer are getting natural selection. So, were not really evolving, were just getting mutations

Ah, but this is where you are wrong! Evoltution is also all the occurrences that lead up to speciation, you can't just snap your fingures and have a new species, there are lots of small steps on the way to a new species.
And besides, we are still influenced by natural selection- can we cure all diseases? I think not, therefore those with resistance to the deadly, unprevenatable ones will survive where others have not= Natural Selection.
I admit natural selection probably occurs to a lesser degree, but there is always artificial selection ;)

Like I said, he says gays should rule, and he hasn't thus far stated his own gayness. So that basically means if I adhere to his party, I'll be the enlightened leader, and when that happens we scrap the part about the Aryan race and white supremacy.

I mean, who would want to forget all those cute gay asian pretty boys? Or those athletic and well-endowed(or so I'm told) black-skinned gays? Or those Kama-Sutra knowing gay Indians? I love diversity, so when I'm in charge nobody's going to be getting favor treatment.
well the real ernst rohm was most certainly gay and a nazi, i've often wondered what would have happened if he had launched the coupe hitler feared before the night of the long knives.

No one should be able to show public affection for one another even if you are attracted to the same or opposite sex.

No one should be able to show public affection for one another even if you are attracted to the same or opposite sex.

Why is that, pray tell?

Mind you, I'm all for exercising some restraint, and that dry-humping and face-chewing certainly lacks a little consideration for those around you. But I'd be interested to hear any sound argument against, say, holding hands in public. Why would that be improper?

"never shown any signs" -> "assume they have NEVER" = False. Read my post again. I'm not saying anything more than its exact wording indicates.

He does mention AVERAGE. My experiences do not reflect his claims. That was my point.

I brought up my experiences because I like to see well-reasoned and supported arguments. I hope that he will be able to learn from my comments and strengthen his case.
You use the word never but you want me to not assume never. So what do your exact words mean? You contradict yourself back to back. If you didn't want me to assume never DON'T USE NEVER!!! To say your idea is anymore well reasoned is ludicrous to say the least. But you are welcome to try again. Just remember the above, DON'T USE NEVER IF YOU DO NOT MEAN NEVER!!!

I'm not a biologist. I'm betting that you're not either, but I admit that I have no credentials to argue this point. However, it has been purported on this forum that non-reproducing members are vital to the well-being of a society. They assist in the caretaking of the young of others' offspring, relieving the strain from the other members. Also, it has been pointed out that abstinent or infertile heterosexuals or the elderly are of no more value to society than are homosexuals, from your perspective.
No my prospective, realities prospective. If a race cannot breed it cannot survive. Basics, you do not have to be a biologist to understand this. Now the elderly do enhance the continuation of a race in the fact that they impart knowledge. My point and you may re-read it since you can't seem to grasp it. Heterosexuals, or "breeders" as we are called, can be doctors, artists, nurses.....as well as reproduce. REPRODUCE, THE BASICS for continuation of any race.

What evidence do you have that suggests your morals are the correct ones? Every society in the history of the world has used parents to teach its morals to their young. Do you believe that the Aztecs, the Romans, the Hunns had the ideal moral values? They probably thought that they did.
So what is your point here? My values have taught me that flagrant displays of affection are rude. Now you may not care because whatever society you belong to, which I guess is comparable to Aztecs, Romans, Huns, does not care how other people may feel. Are you saying that not wanting to cause other people to feel uncomfortable is comparable to a society that tears hearts out or rapes and pillages villages? I don't know what machine you're raging against but you are losing. To even take your argument, who are you to say your morals are correct. If even one person feels uncomfortable then your public display of affection is now something dirty. It's called consideration for others, look it up. If your relationship is so fragile that constant displays of affection are needed then you may have to rethink the person you're with. That is called self control, in case you were not aware of that either.

This one's easy. No, he wasn't. What makes you think that? Did he make a pass at you?
Here, read up and open that closed mind of yours. You are free to look up more sources since it is common knowledge.
Hitler was gay - and killed to hide it, book says

Kate Connolly in Berlin
Sunday October 7, 2001
The Observer

Adolf Hitler was gay - or so says a sensational new biography on the Nazi dictator due to be published tomorrow.
Eyewitness accounts from Hitler's former lovers, and historical documents that for the first time illuminate rumors that have circulated for over half a century, are disclosed in Hitler's Secret: The Double Life of a Dictator .

The respected German historian Lothar Machtan even claims in his book that Hitler ordered the deaths of several high-ranking Nazis to prevent the secret of his homosexuality from surfacing.

Ernst Röhm, the leader of Hitler's Sturm Abteilung or Storm Troopers, tried to blackmail Hitler by threatening to reveal his sexuality. Röhm, who was also gay, was murdered as a result, according to Machtan, a history teacher at Bremen University.

He refers to scores of historical documents to support his thesis. In 1915, the young Hitler was a dispatch rider at the front in France. Years later, yet before Hitler became infamous, one of his fellow soldiers, Hans Mend, wrote in his memoirs: 'At night, Hitler lay with Schmidl, his male whore.' Schmidl, otherwise known as Ernst Schmidt, and Hitler were 'inseparable lovers' for five years, according to Machtan.More... (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,564899,00.html)

Now don't get all offended and think that I submit this as the end all final analysis. But give it some thought. It would be another reason of why he hated Jews since they looked down on his life style choice. I also couldn't help myself since you did add that childish "did he make a pass at you?" remark. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously with dumb remarks like that? NOW THAT was EASY.

I would like to thank you for trying. it was a good effort on your part. On second thought, it doesn't seem like you ever had a chance. You say think you have an open mind but it looks very narrow to me.

You know Jankonia, actually being less arrogant and less agressive might just give you more credibility. You two are not fighting, so try not to boast too much about your arguments being l33t and his arguments being crap. Because from where I stand, you're acting like a child trying to put a friend down to prove his point. Just chill, aight?

Skalador
You know Jankonia, actually being less arrogant and less agressive might just give you more credibility. You two are not fighting, so try not to boast too much about your arguments being l33t and his arguments being crap. Because from where I stand, you're acting like a child trying to put a friend down to prove his point. Just chill, aight?
Not sure I know what you mean. The quotes I rebut are all from Pythagosaurus. Aggressive is just the way I am when I am challenged. I am not out to change your perspective of me, but just keep in mind that I don't really care what you think of me. So, just chill, aight, right back at you. :D

But I'd be interested to hear any sound argument against, say, holding hands in public. Why would that be improper?
I would think kissing, to a certain extent, is perfect fine as well. As long as it doesn't get too sexual, then I think that anyone who opposes public displays of affection is just weird or does not have someone they care about in that way.

I would think kissing, to a certain extent, is perfect fine as well. As long as it doesn't get too sexual, then I think that anyone who opposes public displays of affection is just weird or does not have someone they care about in that way.

I wholeheartedly agree, but it would seem some poeple think love is wrong, for some reason. Or rather, displaying love in public is wrong. I find that rather... I don't know, I guess I find it saddening that we can't show a little love now and then, what with all the violence around us at all times. Anyway, I know I don't feel uncomfortable seeing two persons, gay or hetero, holding hands, kissing goodbye or walking arm-in-arm. Actually I find it very cute, no matter who does it.

Anyway, I know I don't feel uncomfortable seeing two persons, gay or hetero, holding hands, kissing goodbye or walking arm-in-arm. Actually I find it very cute, no matter who does it.
I feel the same way, though, I must admit, I might be a little shocked the first time I saw a same-sex couple kissing. I would not disapprove or anything, I just haven't really been exposed to it much. I hold one exception to this rule though, which is incest. I guess paedophilia could join those ranks, but what's really bad is incest. And nature freaking hates incest too.