NationStates Jolt Archive

ok, list some rights that don't involve children, I'm curious. Too many times I hear, oh you're wrong, such and such says so, but I'm not going to list them, just say they are there with no backing at all.

1. Joint ownership of property.
2. Being treated as a single financial entity.
3. Automatic consideration as next of kin.
4. Uncontestable inheritance.
5. Right to visitation in hospital without "blood kin" preventing it.
6. Right to make medical decisions, including end of life decisions, for your spouse.
7. Right to equitable division of assets during a divorce (god forbid).


As for the adoption part and the having their own children I'd like to point out that adoption laws are completely different. People do not need to be married to adopt a child. And a step-parent has no real rights to a step-child until after they adopt them, being married doesn't grant them any extra rights to the child, believe me, I have a step daughter that I've raised since she was born, but because I don't have the $1000 needed to adopt her, I can't take her to the doctor without getting a note from her mother first. The same is true with my son who cannot be taken to the doctor by my wife, his step mother, without me giving her a note first.

Adoption laws in some states highly favor, if not require, couples to adopt. Some states (Florida and Mississippi come to mind) have made it compltely illegal for gays to adopt, singlely or together. No where can two parents have joint custody of a child if they are of the same sex.

As for step children, the fact remains that you CAN adopt them. Gays cannot do that. Ever. Anywhere.

Holy crap. This thread is long. Anyway, it looks like it's time to clear something up. People who post anything like this (such as why blacks are bad influences with their rap and their drugs and their whores, or why Americans are stupid with their fried lard and Nascar and Garth Brooks, or why French people all smell like urine, sneer at all non-French folk and have a disgusting air of superiority despite their artsy-fartsy prissy coffee-drinking ways) should not get angry when everyone else in the world starts throwing rocks at them for being an "oppressor." I believe that homosexual marriage should be allowed, and I realize that being gay is not easy. I still have a right to be disgusted by gays who kiss in public. When you became gay, you accepted that you were different from the rest of the world. Just as you can't help being a homosexual, I can't help being a little repulsed when I see two men making out in a food court. Freedom is a two-way street, and you shouldn't call us intolerant oppressing bigots no more than we should call you dirty, sicko perverted fags. I know some gay people. They are good people. You don't have to be devoted to one side or another. We're all human here, folks, so let's just respect each other's opinion. Gays have no more control over their sexual orientation than they do the color of their eyes. It can't be easy when they realize it. Their brains are just wired that way- they can't help it. As for us who are a little offended when we see two gay men kissing at the mall, it's years of evolution telling us to be disgusted. Gays are not productive to the species. That raises a red flag in our brains. So stay away from me, both y'all. People that insult others for being heartless bigots obviously don't practice what they preach. People have to be tolerant of who you are. But they don't have to like you. Freedom goes both ways (no pun intended).


While your overall theme might be good, you have so many incorrect points I cannot resist m aking a response. 1. Gays call people intolerant when they suggest taking our rights away. Not when they are disgusted by us. I personally am disgusted by heterosexual loving, but I do not call that intolerant. Intolerance would be when I proposed that we should be all PDA because I might have to explain it to my kids. Oh, and let's take away hetero marriage too. 2. Where did you study evoluation? You do not have to reproduce to propagate the species. Gays serve the species in other ways than simple reproduction. Saying that evolution is only about sex is like saying that Catho . . . .never mind that one is true.

And yes, freedom goes both ways but no gay person has ever suggested taking freedoms away from anyone else. We just want equality for ourselves.

Thank you, I was just about to jump in with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slinao
ok, list some rights that don't involve children, I'm curious. Too many times I hear, oh you're wrong, such and such says so, but I'm not going to list them, just say they are there with no backing at all.



1. Joint ownership of property.
2. Being treated as a single financial entity.
3. Automatic consideration as next of kin.
4. Uncontestable inheritance.
5. Right to visitation in hospital without "blood kin" preventing it.
6. Right to make medical decisions, including end of life decisions, for your spouse.
7. Right to equitable division of assets during a divorce (god forbid).

Thank you, I was just about to jump in with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slinao
ok, list some rights that don't involve children, I'm curious. Too many times I hear, oh you're wrong, such and such says so, but I'm not going to list them, just say they are there with no backing at all.



1. Joint ownership of property.
2. Being treated as a single financial entity.
3. Automatic consideration as next of kin.
4. Uncontestable inheritance.
5. Right to visitation in hospital without "blood kin" preventing it.
6. Right to make medical decisions, including end of life decisions, for your spouse.
7. Right to equitable division of assets during a divorce (god forbid).why must they not involve children? ever heard of adoption? If I were gay, which I sort of am (bi), and I wanted a child, but I didn't want to knock up some slut then return to my loving relationship with my chosen partner, I can still get a child. and you admit that there are rights regarding children. thus you, by which I mean Slinao (BitchKitten is totally right and deserves some serious :fluffle: from an attractive member of their gender of preference), are wrong, an ass, an a blemish on society. I do not like you. you are not my friend.

"This is the thread that will not end.
Yes it goes on and on my friend...." :)

Just a couple of things...

I still have a right to be disgusted by gays who kiss in public. Are you also disgusted by two straights kissing in public?
When you became gay, you accepted that you were different from the rest of the world.One doesn't "become" gay any more than one "becomes" heterosexual; further into your post you do admit that gays brains are just wired differently.
Just as you can't help being a homosexual, I can't help being a little repulsed when I see two men making out in a food court. Actually you can. Your repulsion is a learned response. It can be unlearned. And more importantly you can not teach it to any children you may have.

If a child was to "learn" to become gay by seeing 2 men kiss, then couldn't they just be "relearned" to be straight by seeing a male and female kiss? I mean come on, if it was that easy, it would be easy to fix too. This may have been said already, but I wasn't going to wade through 103 pages to see everything that has been said.

why must they not involve children? ever heard of adoption? If I were gay, which I sort of am (bi), and I wanted a child, but I didn't want to knock up some slut then return to my loving relationship with my chosen partner, I can still get a child. and you admit that there are rights regarding children. thus you, by which I mean Slinao (BitchKitten is totally right and deserves some serious :fluffle: from an attractive member of their gender of preference), are wrong, an ass, an a blemish on society. I do not like you. you are not my friend.

Hey I want snuffle! I'm the one who originally listed those rights!! WAH!

Again, if you have a problem with it still going, don't continue to read or take part in it.


I have no problem with it still going. I'd just like to see it split into another thread or something. 100 pages is a great deal to wade through.

Also, check out Ruling on the General Forum

"1) General Forum threads will have a 65 page cap "

druids felt, church that G-d built
catholics felt, church that we built to honor G-d.




why do some people type g-d, not god?

why do some people type g-d, not god?

Deuteronomy 12:2-4:
"You must destroy all the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess worshiped their gods, whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree. Tear down their altars, smash their pillars, put their sacred posts to the fire, and cut down the images of their gods, obliterating their name from that site. Do not do the same thing to your G-d."

Jews consider this to mean the name of the supreme being should not be destroyed or obliterated - which is also one of the reasons Hebrew texts are treated with reverence and contain JHWH instead of the name written out. Writing it down just anywhere, like on a forum, is showing contempt by that reasoning.

One could argue that G-d is not a name, even with an o on the dash, but a description. Then again, it is written with a capital letter. One could also argue that it only applies to Hebrew writing, not English. But since this is such a small thing that doesn't hurt anyone... why not just show respect anyway ?

Intruiging note is that the last sentence, "Do not do the same thing to your G-d", can also - and often is- translated as "do not worship your G-d this way". So one should not make statues of G-d, but church altars are a sin also.

Deuteronomy 12:2-4:
"You must destroy all the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess worshiped their gods, whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree. Tear down their altars, smash their pillars, put their sacred posts to the fire, and cut down the images of their gods, obliterating their name from that site. Do not do the same thing to your G-d."

Jews consider this to mean the name of the supreme being should not be destroyed or obliterated - which is also one of the reasons Hebrew texts are treated with reverence and contain JHWH instead of the name written out. Writing it down just anywhere, like on a forum, is showing contempt by that reasoning.

One could argue that G-d is not a name, even with an o on the dash, but a description. Then again, it is written with a capital letter. One could also argue that it only applies to Hebrew writing, not English. But since this is such a small thing that doesn't hurt anyone... why not just show respect anyway ?

Intruiging note is that the last sentence, "Do not do the same thing to your G-d", can also - and often is- translated as "do not worship your G-d this way". So one should not make statues of G-d, but church altars are a sin also.

Stupid j00bs. What a way to make a mockery of the religion.
God comes from the German word "gott". You are sanctifying the word of the land that was the focus of the Holocaust. Not that I hate germans or anything, it's just that they can be scary.

But seriously. "God" doesn't read forums, and it's tacky to where your religion on the outside. It doesn't show "respect" to "God", as gods are beyond such pety emotions and don't have inferiority compexes. All it shows is disprespect and disregard, it shows that you care more about elevating your social status in the community or raising your self esteem by doing something that you deem to be pious but is really just another dumb superstition like "knocking on wood" or the "evil eye". Oy gavult.

If a child was to "learn" to become gay by seeing 2 men kiss, then couldn't they just be "relearned" to be straight by seeing a male and female kiss? I mean come on, if it was that easy, it would be easy to fix too. This may have been said already, but I wasn't going to wade through 103 pages to see everything that has been said.

No, nothing profound has been said, at least by the opposition.

Though I'm sure I've made several witty remarks that have perpetuated this stupid arguement.

The bottom line is, within the next century, homosexuals will be accepted along side of the ~35% bisexuals and ~45% heterosexuals, and this whole thing will be a null arguement like interracial marriage or the use of contraceptives. Social progression goes with time, like it or not.

All your base are belong to us.
You are on the way to enlightenment, liberalism, equality, utopia.
Make your time. Pray to your invisible dieties. It can't be stopped.

All it shows is disprespect and disregard, it shows that you care more about elevating your social status in the community or raising your self esteem by doing something that you deem to be pious but is really just another dumb superstition like "knocking on wood" or the "evil eye". Oy gavult.

No, it shows you care for the emotions and sensitivities of people who have different beliefs than you - provided that does not conflict with your own ethics. I'm not Jewish, but if they prefer me to write G-d I just do it. Doesn't hurt anyone.
When someone declares however that his belief says a group of human beings -like homosexuals- is inferior and deserves less rights than others I will attack them immediately. My respect for other people's beliefs has its limits.

No, it shows you care for the emotions and sensitivities of people who have different beliefs than you - provided that does not conflict with your own ethics. I'm not Jewish, but if they prefer me to write G-d I just do it. Doesn't hurt anyone.
When someone declares however that his belief says a group of human beings -like homosexuals- is inferior and deserves less rights than others I will attack them immediately. My respect for other people's beliefs has its limits.

I prefer not to encourage such delusioned behavior, as it only makes the fall hurt more. Judaism is time release atheism.

But I'll let you go back to wasting your time on arguing with people whose beliefs are dying.

Funny story. A gay friend of mine came to stay with me for a cople of weeks. Unbeknownst to me, my live in boyfriend was mildly homophobic. He was trying to get over it though. He asked me if my friend had ever been with a woman. When I told him 'no' he asked "Well how does he know he wouldn't like that better?" I asked my boyfriend if he hed ever been with a man and he answered with a slightly indignant 'no.' So I asked him how he didn't know he'd like that better. He got the point.

Funny story. A gay friend of mine came to stay with me for a cople of weeks. Unbeknownst to me, my live in boyfriend was mildly homophobic. He was trying to get over it though. He asked me if my friend had ever been with a woman. When I told him 'no' he asked "Well how does he know he wouldn't like that better?" I asked my boyfriend if he hed ever been with a man and he answered with a slightly indignant 'no.' So I asked him how he didn't know he'd like that better. He got the point.

heh. pwned.

Look, I'm pretty damn straight, and seeing two guys kiss isn't going to make me try.

If I see people jumping out of airplanes at 50,000,000,000,000 feet (without a parachute), I'm not gonna try! Why should gay peple kissing be any different? (BTW, I'm not comparing being gay with jumping out of airplanes at 50,000,000,000,000 feet without a parachute.)

I have no problem with it still going. I'd just like to see it split into another thread or something. 100 pages is a great deal to wade through.

Also, check out Ruling on the General Forum

"1) General Forum threads will have a 65 page cap "

Well who am I to argue with the rules? Lock the thread mods :)

You know I think that it's amazing that so many bitter people have found this forum! How hard is it to just say "That's their belief. I may not agree, but it's their life and I can respect them for being strong enough to stand up for what they believe." Honestly! I can't count the number of people who stand here and bash people for believing in some God or other, or for NOT believing in God (which is a valid view also) I personally don't think that being gay is morally correct, but I still have gay friends. They know how I feel about it, and they respect me for being firm in my beliefs. I don't force my views on them, and they return the favor. ANYONE who is so intolerant of other people's fundamental right to choose (and I mean to choose anything) needs to re-evaluate. That is the one intolerance that I can't respect. So, to any gay-bashers: it's THEIR LIFE and they have every right to live it in any manner they see fit, they'll have to deal w/ the consequences of their decisions. To anyone else that is bashing: Same goes. To everyone in general: Where is the love? :confused:

You know I think that it's amazing that so many bitter people have found this forum! How hard is it to just say "That's their belief. I may not agree, but it's their life and I can respect them for being strong enough to stand up for what they believe." Honestly! I can't count the number of people who stand here and bash people for believing in some God or other, or for NOT believing in God (which is a valid view also) I personally don't think that being gay is morally correct, but I still have gay friends. They know how I feel about it, and they respect me for being firm in my beliefs. I don't force my views on them, and they return the favor. ANYONE who is so intolerant of other people's fundamental right to choose (and I mean to choose anything) needs to re-evaluate. That is the one intolerance that I can't respect. So, to any gay-bashers: it's THEIR LIFE and they have every right to live it in any manner they see fit, they'll have to deal w/ the consequences of their decisions. To anyone else that is bashing: Same goes. To everyone in general: Where is the love? :confused:


Welcome to General Forum!

But seriously. "God" doesn't read forums, and it's tacky to where your religion on the outside. It doesn't show "respect" to "God", as gods are beyond such pety emotions and don't have inferiority compexes. .
Not to bash anybody's beliefs but, it seems to me that God does have an inferiority complex. From all of the death because they didn't worship him, or they hurt those who did, or they tried to make a big building, just my opinion of course.

Hey I want snuffle! I'm the one who originally listed those rights!! WAH!
Sorry, didn't mean to steal it!

Funny story. A gay friend of mine came to stay with me for a cople of weeks. Unbeknownst to me, my live in boyfriend was mildly homophobic. He was trying to get over it though. He asked me if my friend had ever been with a woman. When I told him 'no' he asked "Well how does he know he wouldn't like that better?" I asked my boyfriend if he hed ever been with a man and he answered with a slightly indignant 'no.' So I asked him how he didn't know he'd like that better. He got the point.

Hehe, I did the same thing when my mom asked me about one of my gay friends. She asked, if he hadn't had sex with a woman, how could he know he wouldn't like it? I find that the funniest question a person unfamiliar with homosexuality (or actively homophobic) ever asks. It's akin to the "If they choose to be gay..." comment I hear so often. Usually, my reply is, "Just when exactly did you get the choice and choose to only be attracted to the opposite gender?"

Sorry, didn't mean to steal it!

<sniffles and wipes away a tear> I suppose I can forgive you <snuffle>

I have an amusing story - I'm bi, and so are two of my female friends. So, I;m sitting with one of my female friends and a guy friend of mine comes up to us and picks up the paper on my schoolbag and remarks abotu how the Supreme Court is making the wrong decision because gays shouldn't have the right to marry and they're wrecking the whole etc... We both look at him. And...wow, he turned red.

I have no problem with it still going. I'd just like to see it split into another thread or something. 100 pages is a great deal to wade through.

Also, check out Ruling on the General Forum

"1) General Forum threads will have a 65 page cap "The 65 page cap came into existence on the old servers when spammy-type threads were still allowed. It was a way to help the servers out and discourage "last one who posts wins" types of things. Those are now automatically banished to the spam forum. My guess is as long as a thread still has content going the mods may be a little more lax in rule interpretation. YMMV

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 are a pathetic bigot. What harm does it do to children to see two people kissing? They'll COPY it? Oh no! Kissing! Kissing is the devil!

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!!
Royal Award of the Kingdom of Nordfjord: IDIOT STATEMENT OF THE YEAR :D

:fluffle:

Here's an idea: Think of all the heterosexual female best friends kissing each others :rolleyes: . Yeah, it's scary how they die from it :D .

Oh, and what's gay marriage got to do with kissing? Teach it to our kids in school? In fifth grade we were thaught about land mines, a truly graphic experience. Do you want to stop teaching kids about war too? Oh, and the Black Death was gross to some people, let's burn all the history books that mention it. :rolleyes:

"Nordfjord"
Oh, and congratulations on your award. Wear it with pride...

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 only problem with this statement is that homosexuality defies one of the two natural instincts of human existence: reproduction. If this is so, then an "elite cadre of dedicated homosexuals" physically cannot exist more than one generation, unless they teach it in schools, which would lead to the general destruction of society

the only problem with this statement is that homosexuality defies one of the two natural instincts of human existence: reproduction. If this is so, then an "elite cadre of dedicated homosexuals" physically cannot exist more than one generation, unless they teach it in schools, which would lead to the general destruction of society

Ah, another person who knows nothing about biology. So cute.

But did not you know? When children see two people kissing a small devil climbs into their ears and steal a tiny part of their love and innocence. It is the ame when Bambis mother dies... go forth believers and destroy both kissing and bambi. (you may destroy anything else that looks bad too)

Kissing... its harmless... no-one thinks it evil, some just think that if its not being done the "proper" way it magically becomes evil.

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.


So... Uhm, why are bisexuals (who are fully capable of and interested in acts that will procreate) part of this party? And what about the league of neglegent parents? Are they too not free of the burden of raising a family, at least of raising a family properly?

The reason why democracy is imperfect is because people like you get to vote. Sure, the quote above uses more logic than most of the posts in this topic, but the logic is still flawed. Likely 80% or more of the posts here are founded in ignorance, and most of the other 20% are unsuccessful in their attempts to be virtuous. Now if only we could do away with corrupt leaders, we would have all the reason we need to shed democracy for communism.

*Awaits flame*

the only problem with this statement is that homosexuality defies one of the two natural instincts of human existence: reproduction. If this is so, then an "elite cadre of dedicated homosexuals" physically cannot exist more than one generation, unless they teach it in schools, which would lead to the general destruction of society
because, of course, gay people are infertile and cannot adopt. oh wait a second....

I think homosexuality is mislead and misdirected sexuality.
It denies natural human instincts, desires and concepts of nature. One of those is reproduction.
The homosexual lifestyle is the portray of an ultra-individualistic and egocentric lifestyle, which is only loking for hedonistic pleasure and for non-reproductive sex.
This is against nature and the natural reason for sexual activity (reproduction).
The result is that also under heterosexuals the non-reproductive lifestyle is spreading and less children are born in countries in which the gay community is openly presenting its lifestyle (the most developed countries) compared to countries where this isn´t the case (not only developing countries but also more conservative developed countries like Ireland or parts of the United States).

the non-reproductive lifestyle is spreading and less children are born in countries in which the gay community is openly presenting its lifestyle


Is this a bad thing? I thought the world (in general, that is) had an overpopulation problem?


Condoms for all, children for none!

I think homosexuality is mislead and misdirected sexuality.
It denies natural human instincts, desires and concepts of nature. One of those is reproduction.
The homosexual lifestyle is the portray of an ultra-individualistic and egocentric lifestyle, which is only loking for hedonistic pleasure and for non-reproductive sex.
Hmm? Sex is bad, then?
Also, what about people who don't have sex, such as me?
This is against nature and the natural reason for sexual activity (reproduction).
The result is that also under heterosexuals the non-reproductive lifestyle is spreading and less children are born in countries in which the gay community is openly presenting its lifestyle (the most developed countries) compared to countries where this isn´t the case (not only developing countries but also more conservative developed countries like Ireland or parts of the United States).
As I believe has been stated before, it's not really something that you choose. Many homosexuals would tell you, I would bet, that they wished they could have been more "normal" at times. But it's not a thing you can switch on or off by choice.

Non productive sex eh? So, it's productive sex if an infertile man/woman has sex with a member of the opposite gender? :rolleyes:

I think homosexuality is mislead and misdirected sexuality.
It denies natural human instincts, desires and concepts of nature. One of those is reproduction.

i have been in a heterosexual relationship for over 3 years, and i never plan to have children.


The homosexual lifestyle is the portray of an ultra-individualistic and egocentric lifestyle, which is only loking for hedonistic pleasure and for non-reproductive sex.

just like my heterosexual relationship. just like the relationships of all infertile people, all women past menopause, all persons who don't wish to have children for whatever reason, all persons who wish to adopt rather than having biological children...


This is against nature and the natural reason for sexual activity (reproduction).

read a book. if homosexuality were against nature then it would not naturally arise and flourish in dozens of species.


The result is that also under heterosexuals the non-reproductive lifestyle is spreading and less children are born in countries in which the gay community is openly presenting its lifestyle (the most developed countries) compared to countries where this isn´t the case (not only developing countries but also more conservative developed countries like Ireland or parts of the United States).
show why lower birth rates are a bad thing. please also explain why, if low birth rates are bad, they are associated with higher quality of life for children, lower infant mortality, and better education.

Well who am I to argue with the rules? Lock the thread mods :)

That's the only reason I was griping. This seems to be one of the few threads that slipped through.

I think homosexuality is mislead and misdirected sexuality.
It denies natural human instincts, desires and concepts of nature. One of those is reproduction.
The homosexual lifestyle is the portray of an ultra-individualistic and egocentric lifestyle, which is only loking for hedonistic pleasure and for non-reproductive sex.
This is against nature and the natural reason for sexual activity (reproduction).
The result is that also under heterosexuals the non-reproductive lifestyle is spreading and less children are born in countries in which the gay community is openly presenting its lifestyle (the most developed countries) compared to countries where this isn´t the case (not only developing countries but also more conservative developed countries like Ireland or parts of the United States).

Hey, you know what... there isn't any such thing as magic.

You know what else... there'sa big white ball in the sky at night!

That must be it! The MOON stole all the magic!!!!

That's the only reason I was griping. This seems to be one of the few threads that slipped through.
No kidding....105 pages and going strong. Damn...

show why lower birth rates are a bad thing.
Ooh.
Now that was a good one!

show why lower birth rates are a bad thing.
They're a bad thing because women are no longer being baby machines and suddenly having careers and not making the man supper! :rolleyes:

Make it to vote on in the UN.. :)

I´m going to vote for you..
NO to GAY-rights..

Keep out Christian Religion free and make a safe world for the childs..


Freindley

Mangan
(Kingdom of East Varmland in Region Sweden)..
;)

I think homosexuality is mislead and misdirected sexuality.
It denies natural human instincts, desires and concepts of nature. One of those is reproduction.
The homosexual lifestyle is the portray of an ultra-individualistic and egocentric lifestyle, which is only loking for hedonistic pleasure and for non-reproductive sex.
This is against nature and the natural reason for sexual activity (reproduction).
The result is that also under heterosexuals the non-reproductive lifestyle is spreading and less children are born in countries in which the gay community is openly presenting its lifestyle (the most developed countries) compared to countries where this isn´t the case (not only developing countries but also more conservative developed countries like Ireland or parts of the United States).

OK First let me laugh at the idea that communism was ever any less corrupt than democracy.

Ha Ha Ha

Now down to business. :D

Now Kyber i seriously hope you read this because it is directed specifically to you.

1) Homosexuality may well be misdirected sexuality, but it is not mislead, that doesnt make any sense. A naturally occuring event cannot be mislead im afraid.

2) it does not deny natural instincts, it IS natural instincts, all be it outside the setting it is usually found in. It does not deny reproduction, merely cannot lead to it. And since when was basic human nature law?

3) The heterosexual lifestyle is the portray of an ultra-individualistic and egocentric lifestyle, which is only loking for hedonistic pleasure and for non-reproductive sex.

OK sorry to ape what you said, which doesnt grammatically make sense, or indeed make sense independent of grammar though i think i get what you were trying to say. The homosexual lifestyle as you so sweepingly describe it is not too different from the heterosexual one. Stop being so high and mighty we are all the same.

4) It is against ONE of the reasons of sex, but not all of them, after all sex is also a means of emotionally bonding, and pleasure SHOCK SHOCK SHOCK, but sex is not just about reproduction, if it were it would be a damn site more reliable, and let me tell you MOST sexual intercourse does not result in a pregnancy and most pregnancies fail very quickly, these go against your law as well, no what you say is flawed nature is not bound by wierd laws held in the minds of all animals.

5) the gay community has very little impact on birth rates, what you are thinking of is a curious thing called catholisism, in which birth control is not practiced. Suprisingly the inability of Gay couple to have children through direct sex has VERY little impact on overall birth rates, for that drop im afraid you are going to have to look toward your heterosexual compatriots.

Imagine how scary it would be to have gayness taught to u in school:

OK kids, now that were done w/ sex, lets talk about gay sex. How it is done with guys is a guy sticks his penis in the other guys anal hole.

AHHHH! MY MIND IS BURNING! MY EYEBALLS ARE ROTTING RIGHT OUT OF MY HEAD! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

"show why lower birth rates are a bad thing."
Because the low birth rates in the most developed countries are threatening to destabilze the social security system which are based on the fact that the working population is paying for the retirees. If the working population is getting smaller and smaller (and the older bigger and bigger) their pensions can not be paid.
Therefore the low birth rates are a thread to the future of European economies. The low growth rates in Europe are also partly linked to the stagnating (or even falling) population. Due to that fact the power of European countries is decreasing and declining. European countries (especially in Central western Europe) are stagnating societies and economies and those countries are going to loose more and more power.
While others (China, India, USA) are gaining more and more powere, also due to the fact that the are having a growing population and higher growth (partly also due to the increasing population).
So: the low birth rates are leading to a development under which european countries become more and more irrelevant (politicaly) and in which the social security system of European countries can not be maintained.
Which furtherly weakens old Europe.

I think homosexuality is mislead and misdirected sexuality.
It denies natural human instincts, desires and concepts of nature. One of those is reproduction.
The homosexual lifestyle is the portray of an ultra-individualistic and egocentric lifestyle, which is only loking for hedonistic pleasure and for non-reproductive sex.
This is against nature and the natural reason for sexual activity (reproduction).
The result is that also under heterosexuals the non-reproductive lifestyle is spreading and less children are born in countries in which the gay community is openly presenting its lifestyle (the most developed countries) compared to countries where this isn´t the case (not only developing countries but also more conservative developed countries like Ireland or parts of the United States).

Look! Kyber is back! And still doesn't know a damn thing about biology, but still wants to talk about it! YAY!

"show why lower birth rates are a bad thing."
Because the low birth rates in the most developed countries are threatening to destabilze the social security system which are based on the fact that the working population is paying for the retirees. If the working population is getting smaller and smaller (and the older bigger and bigger) their pensions can not be paid.
Therefore the low birth rates are a thread to the future of European economies. The low growth rates in Europe are also partly linked to the stagnating (or even falling) population. Due to that fact the power of European countries is decreasing and declining. European countries (especially in Central western Europe) are stagnating societies and economies and those countries are going to loose more and more power.
While others (China, India, USA) are gaining more and more powere, also due to the fact that the are having a growing population and higher growth (partly also due to the increasing population).
So: the low birth rates are leading to a development under which european countries become more and more irrelevant (politicaly) and in which the social security system of European countries can not be maintained.
Which furtherly weakens old Europe.
So what about the whole "overpopulation" bit?

Look! Kyber is back! And still doesn't know a damn thing about biology, but still wants to talk about it! YAY!
Yeah, one would have thought he might've decided to take a night course in remdial biology so he could successfully argue against butt sex between a couple of gays. :D

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!!

And. . . I supposed they should ban the history network, it has a lot of "violent" things on there. . . How about chemistry? Kids could blow themselves up. Oh right, they better never go near a car, if they see a crash, well. . .

You can't shield things from kids all the time. . . And this one is pretty damn stupid.

Kyber read my post and now:

Low birth rates are not responsible for this, poor financial management and longer lifespans are responsible for the up coming problem with retired population. It would still be a problem were birth rates higher, except of course there would be less money to spend on the younger groups as well. This is not a problem we can solve by having more children thats so short sighted it s crazy.

Ok apologise for any spelling mistakes, by the time i post this the text for line two wont have shown itself that, theres some wierd delay on my typing. Thus is life :D.

"show why lower birth rates are a bad thing."
Because the low birth rates in the most developed countries are threatening to destabilze the social security system which are based on the fact that the working population is paying for the retirees. If the working population is getting smaller and smaller (and the older bigger and bigger) their pensions can not be paid.
Therefore the low birth rates are a thread to the future of European economies. The low growth rates in Europe are also partly linked to the stagnating (or even falling) population. Due to that fact the power of European countries is decreasing and declining. European countries (especially in Central western Europe) are stagnating societies and economies and those countries are going to loose more and more power.
While others (China, India, USA) are gaining more and more powere, also due to the fact that the are having a growing population and higher growth (partly also due to the increasing population).
So: the low birth rates are leading to a development under which european countries become more and more irrelevant (politicaly) and in which the social security system of European countries can not be maintained.
Which furtherly weakens old Europe.

I don't know about Europe, but in the US, social security was only meant to be a temporary fix anyways. It has become something that people depend on and claim as a right out of error. Any intelligent person with the means to do so lays aside money for their own retirement.

So what about the whole "overpopulation" bit?


and he/she/it also forgot about the large number of minors who need to be adopted.

Kissing in a mall in front of kids? Depending who you ask, this may or may not be socially acceptable. Personally I find it distasteful, but others do not.

As for it being two men? Let not these two men and their indiscretion, if you wish to call kissing in public indiscretionate, be evidence of a general statement regarding all gays.

Finally, from what I have heard homosexuality is not a choice. So be it, I am not going to set out to stop them no matter my personal views. Misquoted religious materials and over-zealous under-informed Christians are just as bad at giving all Christians a bad name as these two men are at giving homosexuals a bad name. In fact, over-zealous "mightier than thou" Christians are far, far worse. Any Christian who is devout and rightious will also respect the free will of anyone and everyone. The Christian faith is based on the fact that you have been given free will to choose; you should not judge others based on their choices.


In summary, these two men have done nothing more wrong than anyone here flaming them has, as much as I personally may or may not disagree with their actions.

I don't know about Europe, but in the US, social security was only meant to be a temporary fix anyways. It has become something that people depend on and claim as a right out of error. Any intelligent person with the means to do so lays aside money for their own retirement.
LOL, how many of thsoe do you know?

And. . . I supposed they should ban the history network, it has a lot of "violent" things on there. . . How about chemistry? Kids could blow themselves up. Oh right, they better never go near a car, if they see a crash, well. . .

You can't shield things from kids all the time. . . And this one is pretty damn stupid.
Yeah, don't forget biology! They might see blood!

you would also want to ban physical education; you might see too much boob bouncing *cackle* :p and that might cause sexual thoughts....

"show why lower birth rates are a bad thing."
Because the low birth rates in the most developed countries are threatening to destabilze the social security system which are based on the fact that the working population is paying for the retirees. If the working population is getting smaller and smaller (and the older bigger and bigger) their pensions can not be paid.
Therefore the low birth rates are a thread to the future of European economies. The low growth rates in Europe are also partly linked to the stagnating (or even falling) population. Due to that fact the power of European countries is decreasing and declining. European countries (especially in Central western Europe) are stagnating societies and economies and those countries are going to loose more and more power.
While others (China, India, USA) are gaining more and more powere, also due to the fact that the are having a growing population and higher growth (partly also due to the increasing population).
So: the low birth rates are leading to a development under which european countries become more and more irrelevant (politicaly) and in which the social security system of European countries can not be maintained.
Which furtherly weakens old Europe.

hmm, then i guess society has an interest in prohibiting any behavior that will reduce the likelihood that a person will make babies. therefore, we should stop providing any education at all, since uneducated women are far more likely to have babies. women should also not be permitted to work, since women who work full time tend to have smaller families. contraceptives should be illegal, and infertile people should be forbidden to marry fertile people because they will make it impossible for the fertile person to have biological children. in fact, couples should be forced to conceive a child before they marry, to prove they are able to contribute babies to society...if they aren't a fertile couple then their marriage is worthless (since all marriages must be about baby-making and nothing else) so they shouldn't be permitted to debase marriage with a childless union.

Hmm? Sex is bad, then?
Also, what about people who don't have sex>, such as me?.
There is nothing wrong with abstinence. It is a good thing.
Abstinence is certainly better than homosexuality or a promisculous lifestyle which is causing the spread of dangerous diseases.

Any Christian who is devout and rightious will also respect the free will of anyone and everyone. The Christian faith is based on the fact that you have been given free will to choose; you should not judge others based on their choices.

Thank you. Thats the right way to think about it. And i can back up that sentiment w2ith religious material too :P.

There is nothing wrong with abstinence. It is a good thing.
Abstinence is certainly better than homosexuality or a promisculous lifestyle which is causing the spread of dangerous diseases.
Why, again, was a homosexual relationship intrinsically bad ?

Look! Kyber is back! And still doesn't know a damn thing about biology, but still wants to talk about it! YAY!
and he still can't explain why gay people should be denied the right to marry because gay sex won't produce children, yet infertile people should still be allowed to have heterosexual marriages.

There is nothing wrong with abstinence. It is a good thing.
Abstinence is certainly better than homosexuality or a promisculous lifestyle which is causing the spread of dangerous diseases.
I am a homosexual. I don't have sex though.
Are you still opposed to this form homosexuality?

and he still can't explain why gay people should be denied the right to marry because gay sex won't produce children, yet infertile people should still be allowed to have heterosexual marriages.
Because gays are EEeevviill

Spoooooky

Why, again, was a homosexual relationship intrinsically bad ?
1. because it's icky
2. because it makes baby jesus cry
3. because it's unnatural (even though it occurs in nature all the time)
4. because it's icky
5. because it's icky

I don't know about Europe, but in the US, social security was only meant to be a temporary fix anyways. It has become something that people depend on and claim as a right out of error. Any intelligent person with the means to do so lays aside money for their own retirement.
Social security systems are different from country to country. But in many people are forced to pay in mandatory insurances. That payment is giving them a right to receive money when they are older. Though it is not a capital gains system, it is a system of direct exchange, meaning that the younger generations pays for the older and the further younger generation is paying for todays younger generations when it retires (generation pact).
This system can only be maintained if there is a balance between the generations. Without that it can not be maintained. And many people would fall in poverty, creating political and social destability (like in the 1920s and 1930s).

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.
Mind telling me what wars have been started by the Christian Religion? Because if I remember correctly, the war you'll speak of is the Crusades....which wasn't started by Christians, but by Muslims who began to invade Turkey, and lower Europe.

There is nothing wrong with abstinence. It is a good thing.
Abstinence is certainly better than homosexuality or a promisculous lifestyle which is causing the spread of dangerous diseases.


For what its worth, abstinence can be practiced regardless of sexual orientation. So it is not an either/or choice between abstinence and homosexuality.

For what its worth, abstinence can be practiced regardless of sexual orientation. So it is not an either/or choice between abstinence and homosexuality.
good point...many heterosexual and homosexual couples choose not to have sex, and that doesn't mean they love each other any less. are we really going to debase the idea of marriage by reducing it to nothing more than the insertion of a fertile man's penis into a fertile woman's vagina?

LOL, the crusades where sometimes the Muslims and sometimes the christians, but the christians wrote the history you read, so of course they were right. Theyd hardly record.

"We attacked some people to get their land for no GOOD reason today... what fun"

LOL, how many of thsoe do you know?

Every person I know who is not working a job which pays above minimum standards is putting aside money for retirment. This includes my parents, all of my aunts/uncles but one (who is working a low income job), the majority of my coworkers, etc.

Social security systems are different from country to country. But in many people are forced to pay in mandatory insurances. That payment is giving them a right to receive money when they are older. Though it is not a capital gains system, it is a system of direct exchange, meaning that the younger generations pays for the older and the further younger generation is paying for todays younger generations when it retires (generation pact).
This system can only be maintained if there is a balance between the generations. Without that it can not be maintained. And many people would fall in poverty, creating political and social destability (like in the 1920s and 1930s).

Of course, this has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. There are not enough exclusive homosexuals in any country to greatly affect the birth rate. In truth, birth rate falls as nations become more developed. This is due more to the fact that families no longer need children to survive economically than any type of sexuality differences.

Kyber read my post and now:
Low birth rates are not responsible for this, poor financial management and longer lifespans are responsible for the up coming problem with retired population. It would still be a problem were birth rates higher, except of course there would be less money to spend on the younger groups as well. This is not a problem we can solve by having more children thats so short sighted it s crazy.
You are right, that it is not only the low birth rates, but also the increasing life expetency.
But with a higher birth rates the problem would be significantly smaller and more easily handable.
With the current development it seems to lead to the colapse of the European social and economic system.
Thus leading to the inevitable decline of Old Europe.

Every person I know who is not working a job which pays above minimum standards is putting aside money for retirment. This includes my parents, all of my aunts/uncles but one (who is working a low income job), the majority of my coworkers, etc.
You're a lucky guy, most people dont think that far ahead. You find those are the people complaining loudest that the government has let them down later in life, when they were told to save.

Fable of the lazy cricket anyone ?

You are right, that it is not only the low birth rates, but also the increasing life expetency.
But with a higher birth rates the problem would be significantly smaller and more easily handable.
With the current development it seems to lead to the colapse of the European social and economic system.
Thus leading to the inevitable decline of Old Europe.
So we have more children, we have thousands more... and miraculously the economy survives this strain, and so do our resources. Done that.

Now this bigger generation gets older. What do we do then, in all of 50 years, were do the next larger generation come from. The last? No because we cant continue to support exponentially lerger generations. Thats not a solution that just trying to hit a problem until it goes away.

1. because it's icky
2. because it makes baby jesus cry
3. because it's unnatural (even though it occurs in nature all the time)
4. because it's icky
5. because it's icky
Yes, it's very very icky! It even says so in this old book that has been translated so many times no one knows what the hell it says, but we must believe it because it's the word of God! *holds up The Bible and breathes deeply*

Of course, this has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. There are not enough exclusive homosexuals in any country to greatly affect the birth rate. In truth, birth rate falls as nations become more developed. This is due more to the fact that families no longer need children to survive economically than any type of sexuality differences.
Though the United States has a higher birth rates than every developed European country. But the US is higher developed than most European countries.
So you argument is not proven by the reality. The US has a significantly higher birth rate than Europe. And that is also due to the higher amount or faith in the US and the bigger role of religion, which is also containing homosexuality.

So you argument is not proven by the reality. The US has a significantly higher birth rate than Europe. And that is also due to the higher amount or faith in the US and the bigger role of religion, which is also containing homosexuality.

A striking irony in that statement.

Though the United States has a higher birth rates than every developed European country. But the US is higher developed than most European countries.
So you argument is not proven by the reality. The US has a significantly higher birth rate than Europe. And that is also due to the higher amount or faith in the US and the bigger role of religion, which is also containing homosexuality.
NO, Listen for once you dolt. Its not "containing" homosexuality, its preventing family planning and contreception and encouraging the large family. YOu can make numbers do anything if you ignore what they mean. Please think before you speak. I know that thats a Buddhist precept, i should think the bible says something about being mindful of your words as well.

Though the United States has a higher birth rates than every developed European country. But the US is higher developed than most European countries.

provide support for both, please. impartial sites, remember.


So you argument is not proven by the reality. The US has a significantly higher birth rate than Europe. And that is also due to the higher amount or faith in the US and the bigger role of religion, which is also containing homosexuality.
actually, it's due to the fact that the underdeveloped areas of America breed like rabbits. check out basic census stats on education level and procreation, or on the contrast between urban birth rates and rural birth rates.

Mind telling me what wars have been started by the Christian Religion? Because if I remember correctly, the war you'll speak of is the Crusades....which wasn't started by Christians, but by Muslims who began to invade Turkey, and lower Europe.

You're an idiot beyond help. Really. Call me when you find your way out of the Dark Ages.

It's about time to lock this topic.


Things we have learned:

- If the world ends, it is not because of homosexuality
- Homosexuals are fiercely defensive of their lifestyle
- So are heterosexuals
- Heterosexuals argue that sex came from reproduction and thus gay is wrong
- Homosexuals argue all sorts of reasons that gay is not wrong
- Heterosexuals just look plain silly when they complain about gays.

Yep, I cringe when I see things like two men kissing in the mall too. But I'm not going to let my phobia get the best of me. I am pro choice on the gay thing. If they don't choose what I think is right, then good for them. They have made a decision and gotten on with their lives.

Thank you.

Family planning is "to blame" not homosexuality. Should we brun family planing clinics instead ?

I am pro choice on the gay thing. If they don't choose what I think is right, then good for them. They have made a decision and gotten on with their lives.

No you aren't. You're still an ignorant hateful bigot.

You're like some guy who doesn't like blacks but goes along with it because everyone else is.

If you really are so open, go educate yourself.

Thank you.

Family planning is "to blame" not homosexuality. Should we brun family planing clinics instead ?
I thought we were already doing that?

Every person I know who is not working a <job which pays above minimum standards is putting aside <money> for retirment. This includes my parents, all of my aunts/uncles but one (who is working a low income job), the majority of my coworkers, etc.
You miss the fact that there is the possibiltiy of hyperinflation. Many countries in Europe had such periods several times in their history of the 20 th century. And there is no reason to believe that this isn´t possible in the 21 rst century, giving the negative economic perspectives for continental Europe. There is no security.

I thought we were already doing that?
We ARE ?!

I am out of the loop arnt i. Whens Hitler coming back too, this whole slippery slope logic has lead me to the conclusion that he's rising from the dead any day now too.

NO, Listen for once you dolt. Its not "containing" homosexuality, its preventing family planning and contreception and encouraging the large family. YOu can make numbers do anything if you ignore what they mean. Please think before you speak. I know that thats a Buddhist precept, i should think the bible says something about being mindful of your words as well.

Large families and religion are the root of all evil. History bears testament to that. The progress of the US did not occur during time periods when religion was of any importance.

AZNS pwn j00.

is this place full of fags?

The US has a significantly higher birth rate than Europe. And that is also due to the higher amount or faith in the US and the bigger role of religion...

The US is more religious than old Europe?? You must live in the American Northwest, and you have probably never seen a "colored man".
Go fight along side some Catholics in Ireland and come back and say that.

My apologies to everyone I just offended =P

is this place full of fags?

Yep, and we're going to 'convert' the 'non-believers' if you know what I mean. *wink*

We ARE ?!

I am out of the loop arnt i. Whens Hitler coming back too, this whole slippery slope logic has lead me to the conclusion that he's rising from the dead any day now too.
Well, Bush DID cut money for family planning and such.... ;) ok, more of a symbolic burning...

is this place full of fags?
No!

<_<
>_>
<_<

Though the United States has a higher birth rates than every developed European country. But the US is higher developed than most European countries.
So you argument is not proven by the reality. The US has a significantly higher birth rate than Europe. And that is also due to the higher amount or faith in the US and the bigger role of religion, which is also containing homosexuality.

(a) I never said that development was the *only* factor. Actual space is a big factor as well. However, any study will demonstrate that developed countries tend to have a much lower birth rate than non-developed countries.

(b) A small amount of study will demonstrate that there is a *much* higher percentage of rural areas in the US as compared to Western Europe. Rural areas generally have more children per family, due to the higher percentages of farms, family businesses, etc. As such, birth rates would be expected to be higher.

(c) There is also a larger wage gap between poor and wealthy in the US. *Another* factor in birth rate is economic status. Those who are poorer tend to have higher birth rates than those who are more affluent, as they generally have less access to birth control and also feel that children are needed - so that they can go to work as soon as possible and help support the family.

(c) There is also a larger wage gap between poor and wealthy in the US. *Another* factor in birth rate is economic status. Those who are poorer tend to have higher birth rates than those who are more affluent, as they generally have less access to birth control and also feel that children are needed - so that they can go to work as soon as possible and help support the family.
It's also because it's a lot cheaper to raise a family in a rural town than a city due to the general costs of living. It is partially income, but it has to do with locale...

70% of people with AIDS are heterosexuals (straight)

so STFU Nazi

No you aren't. You're still an ignorant hateful bigot.

You're like some guy who doesn't like blacks but goes along with it because everyone else is.

If you really are so open, go educate yourself.


Ignorant? I hope I'm not, but the thing with ignorance is you don't know it =P


Hateful? Definately. I hate people that have to have things their way and push their ideas. Let the gays be gay, agree? So why can't the homophobes be homophobes so long as they live and let live?

Bigot? Nope. Am I uncomfortable with two men kissing in front of me? Very. Just like I am uncomfortable with a man and a woman kissing in front of me. But I have no problems hanging out with those same two guys or that same man and woman when they aren't locking lips. And I am willing to listen to your ideas, just not your flames.

70% of people with AIDS are heterosexuals (straight)

so STFU Nazi
OK, but with less Nazi please.

Birth rate per woman
USA 2,0
Italy 1,2
Spain 1,2
Germany 1,3

LOL What % of people are heterosexual? If its more than 70% then your statistic is rather counterproductive. Ah, numbers in the hands of the weak minded.

Actually, it wouldn't matter if more that 70% of the US population is heterosexual. The point is that AIDS is not a "gay disease."

Actually, it wouldn't matter if more that 70% of the US population is heterosexual. The point is that AIDS is not a "gay disease."
Sure it is. The Christians say so, so it MUST be true. :rolleyes:

Actually, it wouldn't matter if more that 70% of the US population is heterosexual. The point is that AIDS is not a "gay disease."


My bad *acknowledges error*

My bad *acknowledges error*
*dies of shock* take heed oh ye un erring ones.

The US is more religious than old Europe?? You must live in the American Northwest, and you have probably never seen a "colored man".
Go fight along side some Catholics in Ireland and come back and say that.

My apologies to everyone I just offended =P
I´m not from the US. So your point is moot.
But the US is more religious than continental Europe.
With 2/3 of the population going to church every Sunday the US is a deeply religious country while in continental Europe the numbers are only about 10% if at all.

I´m not from the US. So your point is moot.
But the US is more religious than continental Europe.
With 2/3 of the population going to church every Sunday the US is a deeply religious country while in continental Europe the numbers are only about 10% if at all.
and yet most European nations have a union between their government and a given state religion. so, aparently, if you want people to be more religious then the best thing to do is not legislate it at all.

With 2/3 of the population going to church every Sunday the US is a deeply religious country while in continental Europe the numbers are only about 10% if at all.


Two thirds? And which impartial source did these numbers come from?

I think homosexuality is mislead and misdirected sexuality.
It denies natural human instincts, desires and concepts of nature. One of those is reproduction.
The homosexual lifestyle is the portray of an ultra-individualistic and egocentric lifestyle, which is only loking for hedonistic pleasure and for non-reproductive sex.
This is against nature and the natural reason for sexual activity (reproduction).
The result is that also under heterosexuals the non-reproductive lifestyle is spreading and less children are born in countries in which the gay community is openly presenting its lifestyle (the most developed countries) compared to countries where this isn´t the case (not only developing countries but also more conservative developed countries like Ireland or parts of the United States).

There is so much you don't know about so many things that it is hard for me to figure out where to start, so I suppose I will just go chronologically through your arugument--or would it be spatially? Oh who cares, I'll start with your first (incorrect) point and proceed.

1. Not all humans have to reproduce. Not all members of any species have to reproduce. Species that have non-reproducing members who work to create resources and provide for the young are more successful. Further, would you tell people that simply don't want children that they are unnatural? Are they a threat to the species? Basically, what I'm saying is that its not unnatural to not want kids. Unnatural would be wanting to kill off/ban a large portion of a population because they aren't liked everyone else.

2. Where did you get the idea that homosexuality is only about sex? Its also about love and commitment. Are heterosexual relationships only about the sex? Are there homosexuals who are just out for pleasurable sex? Sure. Are there heterosexuals doing the same thing? You bet--visit frat row on any college campus. Should these people be banned from marriage?

3. A low birth rate is a bad thing in a grossly overpopulated world that will not be able to support the ever-increasing population that it is burdoned with? Are you really that thick? I don't think you are. I'm hoping that having a logic-check waved under your nose might wake you up.

Of course if the people I've debated with on here before are any indication, this could get rather long and boring.

and yet most European nations have a union between their government and a given state religion. so, aparently, if you want people to be more religious then the best thing to do is not legislate it at all.

With such a close relationship between church and state I'd think they'd do a better job of containing homosexuality and its depopulating effects. :rolleyes:

Birth rate per woman
USA 2,0
Italy 1,2
Spain 1,2
Germany 1,3

That's nice. Now compare those numbers to those in most African countries, or in many SE Asian countries, or in many South American countries. In other words, compare it to less developed countries.

Hmm? Sex is bad, then?
Also, what about people who don't have sex, such as me?

As I believe has been stated before, it's not really something that you choose. Many homosexuals would tell you, I would bet, that they wished they could have been more "normal" at times. But it's not a thing you can switch on or off by choice.

Darned tootin. There was a time in my life when I would've given anything to be straight. I tried to be. I pretended to be. I begged on my knees that I could be. Then I thought--well, I'll just go through life being asexual. I won't fantasize, I won't dream of sex or of love or of spending my life with a person who makes me feel a little bit less alone and a bit more happy.

Then I woke up and realized. Why the hell is it anyone else's business? Why should I care if I was born different than anyone else? No one here is supposed to judge me and I do my best not to judge others fo rthings they can't control. I don't see why people can't just get passed stoopid prejudices.

Imagine how scary it would be to have gayness taught to u in school:



AHHHH! MY MIND IS BURNING! MY EYEBALLS ARE ROTTING RIGHT OUT OF MY HEAD! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

If only that worked, I would have sex in public.

There is nothing wrong with abstinence. It is a good thing.
Abstinence is certainly better than homosexuality or a promisculous lifestyle which is causing the spread of dangerous diseases.

Why is abstinence which doesn't produce children better than homosexuality which doesn't produce children? (assuming of course you really believe that its all about making babies and that you aren't just trying to find an excuse to justify your bigotry).

Further, not all homosexuals are promiscuous. SHOCK!

2. because it makes baby jesus cry


Finally, someone manages to explain it to me! Now I have to go for my degayification treatment.

Mind telling me what wars have been started by the Christian Religion? Because if I remember correctly, the war you'll speak of is the Crusades....which wasn't started by Christians, but by Muslims who began to invade Turkey, and lower Europe.

The Christians started the Crusades to retake the Holy Lands. And let's think of a few others Christians have started--World War I, World War II, Vietnam, The US War for Independance, the US Civil War, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Franco-Prussian War, The French Revolution.

Shall we name a few other horrific events perpetuated by Christians over the years? The Children's Crusade, The Spanish Inquisition, the eradication of Native Americans, the Holocaust. . . I'm sure I could come up with more.

Why is abstinence which doesn't produce children better than homosexuality which doesn't produce children? (assuming of course you really believe that its all about making babies and that you aren't just trying to find an excuse to justify your bigotry).

Further, not all homosexuals are promiscuous. SHOCK!

While you have a point, abstinence means you only have sex with your spouse. So only for the spouseless does abstinence mean no kiddos.

and yet most European nations have a union between their <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=government&v=56">government</a> and a given state religion. so, aparently, if you want <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a> to be more religious then the best thing to do is not legislate it at all.
Where did you get this information from? Some countries do have that but not many. Countries however to regonize the churches and sometimes have treaties with them.
Some countries even have civil marriage (marriage as a state issue). So religious marriage is legally irrelevant, only state marriage legally counts.
The relationship religion-state is complex. But it is mainly not very close, due to secularisation.
In the US the institutional bindings may be more lose but the religious references in politics (not only under Bush, also under Clinton) and the religiously coloured patriotism is a much stronger factor in the US than in Europe.

You are right, that it is not only the low birth rates, but also the increasing life expetency.
But with a higher birth rates the problem would be significantly smaller and more easily handable.
With the current development it seems to lead to the colapse of the European social and economic system.
Thus leading to the inevitable decline of Old Europe.

You mean gays really are responsible for the fall of society? Yeesh, I really am going to have to drag myself to that Christian therapy place to start treating my fagotry.

While you have a point, abstinence means you only have sex with your spouse. So only for the spouseless does abstinence mean no kiddos.
to abstain from sex means to not have sex with ANYBODY. somebody who is abstinent is not have sex with anyone, including their partner.

A striking irony in that statement.

And strinkingly bad grammar in it too.

Why is abstinence which doesn't produce children better than homosexuality which doesn't produce children?
Because abstinence is - in difference to homosexuality or a promisculous lifestyle - not causing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Furthernmore it is not undermining society, as homosexuality and the gay movement does (with its demand of gay marriage and other outrageous things).

Thank you.

Family planning is "to blame" not homosexuality. Should we brun family planing clinics instead ?

Aren't the Christians already doing that too?

Boy oh boy..do these threads every go away?

Drop the Homosexual talk.

The marriages will, and should, be left to the states ( For those living in the US) I for one, do not mind gays. I do not care if they get married. But do not try and force your beliefs on me is all.

But..this decision is a decision that should be left to the states.

And a little fact..40 states have banned gay marriages ;) Or are in the process ;)

So really..either eway..gay marriages will be banned in the whole country..or in the majority of states.'


Edit: And stop bashing the Christians..your generlizing of them bering bad is narrowminded and plain stupid. Practice what you preach. Everyone has their views...whether they can back them up or not.

Fucking hypocrites.

The relationship religion-state is complex. But it is mainly not very close, due to secularisation.


Allow me to paraphrase:

The relationship religion-state is complex.
The relationship between state and religion is complex, so you can't explain it in one post but I can do it in one sentence.

But it is mainly not very close, due to secularisation.
This complex relationship of the state and religion is mostly determined by something that has nothing to do with religion or legislation.

Where did you get this information from? Some countries do have that but not many.


Andorra Roman Catholic Church
Denmark Church of Denmark Lutheran
England Church of England Anglican
Finland Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland/Finnish Orthodox Church
Lutheran/Eastern Orthodox
Greece Greek Orthodox Church Eastern Orthodox
Iceland Church of Iceland Lutheran
Norway Church of Norway Lutheran
Scotland Church of Scotland Reformed
Spain Roman Catholic Church

and there are several that have only severed the official state religion within the last decade or so. i would say that is a significant amount of Europe, wouldn't you?

While you have a point, abstinence means you only have sex with your spouse. So only for the spouseless does abstinence mean no kiddos.

Abstinence means you have sex with no one. Monogamy means you only have sex with one person you are committed to, IE your spouse.

Abstinence is the only 100% effective means of birth control (not withstanding Mary).

to abstain from sex means to not have sex with ANYBODY. somebody who is abstinent is not have sex with anyone, including their partner.


Hrm. There is a word for that then... what is it? C--- something. Means you only do your spouse. Shoot, I forget.

Because abstinence is - in difference to homosexuality or a promisculous lifestyle - not causing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Furthernmore it is not undermining society, as homosexuality and the gay movement does (with its demand of gay marriage and other outrageous things).

I've had gay sex. I'm not spreading diseases anymore than my heterosexual compatriots (less in fact). And just how is my butt sex and my demands to be treated equally be the government I pay taxes to undermining society?

And what outrageous things have I asked for? Is human dignity that outrageous to you?

Hrm. There is a word for that then... what is it? C--- something. Means you only do your spouse. Shoot, I forget.

Commitment? You must be male, given that our gender has such a difficult time with that word. . . .

I've had gay sex. I'm not spreading diseases anymore than my heterosexual compatriots (less in fact). And just how is my butt sex and my demands to be treated equally be the government I pay taxes to undermining society?

Didn't you know? Equal treatment makes the baby Jesus cry!

And what outrageous things have I asked for? Is human dignity that outrageous to you?

Human dignity is only for the straight, Christian, white people. Come on, you can't tell me you didn't know that!

Human dignity is only for the straight, Christian, white people. Come on, you can't tell me you didn't know that!

<scratches his head> I mean. . .huma. . . . but ever. . . . oh never mind. <Gives baby jesus a pacifier to suck on>

Commitment? You must be male, given that our gender has such a difficult time with that word. . . .


Nope, thats not the word.
I am actually quite committed thank you. For someone so avidly defending homosexuality against those who make broad generalisations, you sure have no problems lumping all men together in one shot. *sarcasm* Bravo, I just gained so much respect for your cause.

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!!


This is vicious and evil. How DARE you post bigotry on this forum. We should be moving to greater acceptance...not less.

Nope, thats not the word.
I am actually quite committed thank you. For someone so avidly defending homosexuality against those who make broad generalisations, you sure have no problems lumping all men together in one shot. *sarcasm* Bravo, I just gained so much respect for your cause.

Dude, I was being sarcastic as I said that. Call it poetic license. My apologies for not putting a ;) beside it to make it obvious.

I've had gay sex. I'm not spreading diseases anymore than my heterosexual compatriots (less in fact). And just how is my butt sex and my demands to be treated equally be the government I pay taxes to undermining society?

And what outrageous things have I asked for? Is human dignity that outrageous to you?
given that the vast majority of STDs are spread primarily through heterosexual sex, i think we all can see how much grounding Kyber has in reality. also, given that lesbian sex is the safest sex you can have, it's pretty obvious that homosexuality isn't the problem when it comes to disease. if Kyber really was concerned with preventing STDs, then he would support allowing ONLY lesbian couples to marry. if he were concerned with the welfare of children, he would support ONLY allowing lesbians to rear children, since lesbian couples are the least likely to abuse children and are more likely than their heterosexual peer-couples to be able to provide stable incomes and improved education. if Kyber was worried about economic benefits he would support ONLY allowing homosexual couples to marry, since they already tend to pay more and get less from their tax dollars.

but Kyber isn't worried about any of those things. he is worried about himself. he is worried about getting his way. he is worried about ensuring that his selfishness will be legislated. shame on you, Kyber.

Andorra Roman Catholic Church
Denmark Church of Denmark Lutheran
England Church of England Anglican
Finland Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland/Finnish Orthodox Church
Lutheran/Eastern Orthodox
Greece Greek Orthodox Church Eastern Orthodox
Iceland Church of Iceland Lutheran
Norway Church of Norway Lutheran
Scotland Church of Scotland Reformed
Spain Roman Catholic Church

and there are several that have only severed the official state religion within the last decade or so. i would say that is a significant amount of <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=Europe&v=56">Europe</a>, wouldn't you?

That are mainly small countries.
And Spain is having a very anti-religious government.
By the way: that the state is controlling the church or the other way can not be said in any of those cases.

The downfall of religion in Europe can not be explained with a link (however lose) between church and state. Such links are in fact weakening.
As well as religion is getting weaker.

While in the US it is getting stronger.

The result of the election 2004 is proving this fact.

<scratches his head> I mean. . .huma. . . . but ever. . . . oh never mind. <Gives baby jesus a dildo to suck on>

hehe that's better

While in the US it is getting stronger.

The result of the election 2004 is proving this fact.

You mean that one that Bush barely won but still somehow believes he has a mandate to govern with? HAH!

Anyway for all of you who are asking why we dont tolarate homosexualty it's because of our religion, it's our beliefs jesus christ! our god nuked a city for being homosexual and you wounder why we dont like it? Just becuase you dont agree dont make fun of us or make us out to be ignorant a-holes I give your religions respect so do the same for ours!

OK, time to move on.

Results as I see it: Gays are not a negative influence. Saying so only leads to several personal attacks based on beliefs. Let me screw my one person I've picked and you can do yours. Lets gang up on the promiscuity and not sexual orientation, as multiple partners poses more threat to health and family stability than any sexual orientation.

I'm out, so flame at will.

hehe that's better

As long as we go on record that you altered my quote.

Hrm. There is a word for that then... what is it? C--- something. Means you only do your spouse. Shoot, I forget.Nice trick when most U.S. states won't let gays marry.

It's a classic Catch-22. "All you homos are promiscuous." "No, actually I''m monogamous and would like to get married." "Gay marriage is an abomination against God." Repeat ad infinitum.

Anyway for all of you who are asking why we dont tolarate homosexualty it's because of our religion, it's our beliefs jesus christ! our god nuked a city for being homosexual and you wounder why we dont like it? Just becuase you dont agree dont make fun of us or make us out to be ignorant a-holes I give your religions respect s odo the same for ours!

Really? What respect do you give gays (and their religions?!?). Do you allow us equality undre the law or would you support that?

And I'm sorry, you are ignorant because I know more about your religion than you obviously do. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they had plenty and di not share it and they did not show hospitality to visitors. Read up on Isaiah and then read that Jesus quoted him.

Then lets discuss the translations of Sodom and Gomorrah. In the English version it makes it appear that the people of the city wanted to have rape the angels visiting Lot because they ask Lot to send them out so that they might "know" them. Now, I am not an expert on ancient Hebrew, but I've known several. According to them the word "to know" here literally means just that. To know. It doesn't imply sexual relations in Hebrew--only in modern translations. In fact, the same word is used something like thirty more times in the OT and it never means anything dealing with sex.

So, what was that about not being ignorant but not knowing about what your holy book actually says. . . .

Nice trick when most U.S. states won't let gays marry.

It's a classic Catch-22. "All you homos are promiscuous." "No, actually I''m monogamous and would like to get married." "Gay marriage is an abomination against God." Repeat ad infinitum.


Well, come on up to Canada and get hitched here, or just live together for long enough to become commonlaw.

As long as we go on record that you altered my quote.


hehe no prob. just needed a bit of comic relief on my end..

I've had gay sex. I'm not spreading diseases anymore than my heterosexual compatriots (less in fact). And just how is my butt sex and my demands to be treated equally be the government I pay taxes to undermining society?
You present a bad example for children.

And what outrageous things have I asked for? Is human dignity that outrageous to you?
Human dignity is no problem. But are you defining yourself through your sexuality? You deserve human dignity because you are human.
But that doesn´t mean that people have to respect everything you do. Respect and dignity are two different things.
And if you life such a life style you can not expect to be treated the same way for a life style that is different.

You present a bad example for children.

Really? Wanting to spend my life with on person for ever is a bad example to children?


Human dignity is no problem. But are you defining yourself through your sexuality? You deserve human dignity because you are human.
But that doesn´t mean that people have to respect everything you do. Respect and dignity are two different things.
And if you life such a life style you can not expect to be treated the same way for a life style that is different.

I believe all humans deserve equal treatment undre the law--this includes the right to marry the person of your choicing and to get hte rights associated with marriage that the governmetn grants to other couples.

You have yet to give me one good reason why gays are harmful or why they should not get married.

hehe no prob. just needed a bit of comic relief on my end..

Comic relief is good--I laugh my ass nearly off (quite an accomplishment). I just have an image to protect here ;)

Really? Wanting to spend my life with on person for ever is a bad example to children? .
You don´t present the example for a family and the relationship of a man and a woman.


I believe all humans deserve equal treatment undre the law--this includes the right to marry the person of your choicing and to get hte rights associated with marriage that the governmetn grants to other couples.
You have yet to give me one good reason why gays are harmful or why they should not get married.
Because marriage is not an individual right. You can´t marry yourself after all. It is a right for a couple of two people of different sex.
It has to be between a man and a woman, who present the score of a family.
This score may/could become the place where offspring can grow up in a stable environment.

Marriage is not only about the two people. It is an instituition designed for that purpose.
Homosexuality goes against this purpose. It is anti-reproductive.
And therefore it presents a negative example for children and those in no way fulfill the purpose of marriage, which is to bind a man and woman, due to the importance of this binding for society.

Here's why people like you are a negative influence:

So I was innocently signing onto NationStates today, and saw a quick little blurb on the side panel showing this thread. Immediately thinking there would be some idiot ranting about something he/she doesn't know anything about (wow, I was right!), I decided to click the link. And sure enough, there's a trite little nugget of dumb-assery (I hold copyrights on that word) with no point whatsoever.

After viewing this, I decided to write a short rebuttle, thus wasting two minutes of my life.

This is why people like you are a negative influence on the world.

You don´t present the example for a family and the relationship of a man and a woman.

Oh? So what? What is inherantly wrong with the relationship between two men or two women? What is so wrong with people being in love?


Because marriage is not an individual right. You can´t marry yourself after all. It is a right for a couple of two people of different sex.

Why?


It has to be between a man and a woman, who present the score of a family.
This score may/could become the place where offspring can grow up in a stable environment.

By that logic, if a man and woman could NEVEr produce children, they shouldn't be able to get married.

Further, gay parents can provide a loving and stable environment for children--either their own or adopted. It's been proven.


Marriage is not only about the two people. It is an instituition designed for that purpose.

See above.


Homosexuality goes against this purpose. It is anti-reproductive.
And therefore it presents a negative example for children and those in no way fulfill the purpose of marriage, which is to bind a man and woman, due to the importance of this binding for society.

Infertil people goes against this purpose. It is anti-reproductive.
And therefore it presents a negative example for children and those in no way fulfill the purpose of marriage, which is to bind a fertile man and women, due to the importance for this binding for society.

PUHLEASE!

Why is it so important to society that men and women ONLY get married and that they have to produce children?

Why?

For the record, Kyber is right that marriage is not an *individual* right (although he has argued the exact opposite *numerous* times before). Of course, by allowing that right to heterosexual couples and not to homosexual ones, the government is discriminating based on sexual orientation, something which is precluded (in the US anyways) by the 14th Amendment.

Of course, Kyber's assertion that the entire purpose of marriage is children is also very, very wrong. Even a cursory look at marriage protections would demonstrate that most marriage laws have nothing whatsoever to do with children.

They don´t have to, but it encourages them to do so because it binds them together.
And by the way: infertile people can adopt.

Homosexuals can not present a father and a mothers: Studies prove that children in such an environment feel that they are part of an experiment. They are also asking for the missing parent, because children realize that is not normal to have two daddies or two mommies.
So: children don´t fit in such relationships, since they are artificial in respect to the question of father and mother.
And some children in a study openly said, that they were told not to tell anything bad since it wouldn´t be "political correct".
I don´t see that growing up in such an environment is good for children.
It is artifical and in that sense even more difficult for children than a single household.
One reason more to say that marriage is not for homosexuals. Because the opportunity to adopt should preferable go to married people.

For the record, Kyber is right that marriage is not an *individual* right (although he has argued the exact opposite *numerous* times before). Of course, by allowing that right to heterosexual couples and not to homosexual ones, the government is discriminating based on sexual orientation, something which is precluded (in the US anyways) by the 14th Amendment.

Of course, Kyber's assertion that the entire purpose of marriage is children is also very, very wrong. Even a cursory look at marriage protections would demonstrate that most marriage laws have nothing whatsoever to do with children.

But Kyber is of course not interested in actually protecting rights or in considering what the laws actually say, now is s/he?

Ah well. . .I'm of to hit the treadmill and weights like a good little sterotyped gay boy :)

They don´t have to, but it encourages them to do so because it binds them together.
And by the way: infertile people can adopt.

Homosexuals can not present a father and a mothers: Studies prove that children in such an environment feel that they are part of an experiment. They are also asking for the missing parent, because children realize that is not normal to have two daddies or two mommies.
It's a learned behaviour. I've known kids that have grown up with gay parents, so your argument that they all do is wrong.
So: children don´t fit in such relationships, since they are artificial in respect to the question of father and mother.
And some children in a study openly said, that they were told not to tell anything bad since it wouldn´t be "political correct".
What, so since some gay parents have done that, we all will? I bet many of us don't give a flying fuck about "Politically Correct".
I don´t see that growing up in such an environment is good for children.
It is artifical and in that sense even more difficult for children than a single household.
One reason more to say that marriage is not for homosexuals. Because the opportunity to adopt should preferable go to married people.
Wait. To start with. since when is marriage about reproduction? You can reproduce perfetly well without a marriage. And adopting has nothing to do with reproduction, on top of that.

They don´t have to, but it encourages them to do so because it binds them together.
And by the way: infertile people can adopt.

By the way, gay people can adopt.


Homosexuals can not present a father and a mothers: Studies prove that children in such an environment feel that they are part of an experiment. They are also asking for the missing parent, because children realize that is not normal to have two daddies or two mommies.


And here we go again. So should we take children way from single parents?

And by the way, studies show that children raised in gay households fair just as well socially, intellectually, emotionally, and academically. The only difference is that they are more tolerant. I can see where that might be a threat to you of course.


So: children don´t fit in such relationships, since they are artificial in respect to the question of father and mother.

And so we should ban artificial insemination. Because there is no father and mother in the children's lives. And when one parent dies, let's rip the kids away, because there is no father and mother in the kids lives. :eyerolls:


And some children in a study openly said, that they were told not to tell anything bad since it wouldn´t be "political correct".
I don´t see that growing up in such an environment is good for children.


Regardless of what "you see" the children do fair just as well. Read actual, non-biased studies not performed by the southern baptist convention.


It is artifical and in that sense even more difficult for children than a single household.

Only because of people like you.


One reason more to say that marriage is not for homosexuals. Because the opportunity to adopt should preferable go to married people.

That's an arguement for gay marriage. More kids owuld get adopted and have two parents would who love them, as opposed to being raised by multiple families as they are shuffled around in the foster care center or growing up in group homes.

Of course, you dont' really care about children. You are just continuing to grasp at reasons to justify your homophobia.

For the record, Kyber is right that marriage is not an *individual* right (although he has argued the exact opposite *numerous* times before). Of course, by allowing that right to heterosexual couples and not to homosexual ones, the <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=government&v=56">government</a> is discriminating based on sexual orientation, something which is precluded (in the US anyways) by the 14th Amendment..
Those the 14 th amendment name sexual orientation?
And by the way: Differnet treatment is allowed if there is a legitimate reason for that: for example: the insurance premium for a private retirement insurance is lower for male than female. Discrimination? Well: the life expetency of males are much lower than of females (on average). Therefore the insurance companies have to expect different financial responsibilities in that respect. The "discrimination" in respect of sex is therefore complettly legitimate.

Of course, Kyber's assertion that the entire purpose of marriage is children is also very, very wrong. Even a cursory look at marriage protections would demonstrate that most marriage laws have nothing whatsoever to do with children.
However: if a children is born within a marriage the husband is automatically considered the father. That is not the case for a non-married relationship. There is no automaticity.
Furthernmore marriage means also responsibilities (legally) of both partners, thus protecting the woman. Therefore it is naturally the case that most children are born within marriages.

Ah, well...

"This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
-Ayn Rand

EDIT:
Hee, I like that so much I'm adding it to my sig.

"That's an arguement for gay marriage. More kids owuld get adopted and have two parents would who love them, as opposed to being raised by multiple families as they are shuffled around in the foster care center or growing up in group homes."
No, it is bad for children to be used in an experiment of the gay movement.
You don´t care about the children. You just want to abuse them in order to be accepted in society. You are using the children as a shield. That is immoral.

You can not change the fact: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality. If all people would be you the human race would die out.
It is as easy as that.
Therefore you should accept the reality. And that is that you don´t have the same importance and status in society.

But I'll bet you think that GWBush and Rumsfeld and their dirty little war, which has killed thousands, are a good influence.

Here's a little advice.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
I do. But since marriage is a public matter and the definition of marriage a public issue I´m minding also my business by participating in the discussion.

Those the 14 th amendment name sexual orientation?

The 14th Amendment assures equality of law, period. As such, the court system has extended to all human traits. The government cannot unfairly discriminate against someone based on their gender (perceived or otherwise), sexual orientation, race, creed, color, disabled status (unless such discrimination is required by the status), etc.

And by the way: Differnet treatment is allowed if there is a legitimate reason for that: for example: the insurance premium for a private retirement insurance is lower for male than female. Discrimination? Well: the life expetency of males are much lower than of females (on average). Therefore the insurance companies have to expect different financial responsibilities in that respect. The "discrimination" in respect of sex is therefore complettly legitimate.

(a) There has been no legitimate reason put forth to deny homosexual couples the protections afforded by marriage.
(b) Insurance companies are not the government.

However: if a children is born within a marriage the husband is automatically considered the father. That is not the case for a non-married relationship. There is no automaticity.

No, the husband is automatically considered the father if the mother doesn't say otherwise and has his name placed on the birth certificate.

Not that this matters, as any married couple (unless the biological parent is listed on the birth certificate and contests) can adopt their spouse's children.

Furthernmore marriage means also responsibilities (legally) of both partners, thus protecting the woman. Therefore it is naturally the case that most children are born within marriages.

Those responsibilities do not all have to do with protecting the woman. In most cases, both spouses are protected. And they do not necessarily have to do with children either.

You can not change the fact: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality.

Wrong. You personally believe that homosexuality is "misdirected sexuality." Biologically, there is no reason to believe this.

If all people would be you the human race would die out.

Which has what to do with the price of eggs in China?

You can not change the fact: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality. If all people would be you the human race would die out.1. Misdirected by who? God?
2. Not all people are gay, so (unfortunately) the human race won't die out. Don't speculate on ifs.

"That's an arguement for gay marriage. More kids owuld get adopted and have two parents would who love them, as opposed to being raised by multiple families as they are shuffled around in the foster care center or growing up in group homes."
No, it is bad for children to be used in an experiment of the gay movement.
You don´t care about the children. You just want to abuse them in order to be accepted in society. You are using the children as a shield. That is immoral.

Wouldn't just saying "Nuh-uh, it's bad for kids!" have been more succinct? Your argument here contains no more substance than that. Well, that and demonization of a minority group, which provides some substance in that it provides a grimy little window into the author's mind.

You can not change the fact: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality. If all people would be you the human race would die out.
It is as easy as that.
Therefore you should accept the reality. And that is that you don´t have the same importance and status in society.

Misdirected? Howso? A homosexual's chemistry makes him attracted to persons with whom he can have sex. Sounds pretty straightforward to me...now for those "heterosexuals" who go through life with various sexual dysfunctions because they are uncomfortable with facing that little rainbow streak in the corner, that's misdirected sexuality.

If, if, if...and if the Pope had tits, he'd be a nun. Doesn't change the fact that he's not, nor is a wave of homosexuality going to sweep the species into extinction. It's about time that you accepted the reality that a developed society does not deny people rights by determining their "importance and status in society." Let's juxtapose this with denying people of color rights decades ago...no, I won't waste my time. You won't bother to think about it, and it's clear as day to anyone else.

"That's an arguement for gay marriage. More kids owuld get adopted and have two parents would who love them, as opposed to being raised by multiple families as they are shuffled around in the foster care center or growing up in group homes."
No, it is bad for children to be used in an experiment of the gay movement.
You don´t care about the children. You just want to abuse them in order to be accepted in society. You are using the children as a shield. That is immoral.
Well, other than the fact that some of us don't even want children, there's so much wrong with that... But I won't even get into it.

You can not change the fact: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality. If all people would be you the human race would die out.
It is as easy as that.
Therefore you should accept the reality. And that is that you don´t have the same importance and status in society.
But all people will *not* be like us. Here, if you wanna hear it again:
Homosexuality is not a conscious choice.
It's not like we woke up one day and decided "Hey, let's not procreate!"
Don't have the same status and importance?
Read the Constitution someday. I thought there was a bit about "All men are created equal".

Porn is wrong, but I would rather have the choice to go out and buy a playboy or choose not to
Where in the bible does it say "I made woman beautiful, so you should never ever want to see that beauty?"

Read the song of soloman, it's a thousand times more erotic than Playboy

and if the Pope had tits, he'd be a nun
Umm, the leader of the ironically pro-pederasty/anti-gay church DOES have tits, check a recent photo.

I agree with this topic creator. Homosexuality is abomination to this earth and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Little kids are going to see these perverts kiss or even worse and raise questions that shouldn't have to be answered. In my high school there was this thing called "The gay straight alliance" where they posted crap posters throughout the school about "tolerance." And they even made us respect gay history month. Thats like respecting nazi history month. Homosexuality should be frowned upon for the disgusting thing that it is.

No, it is bad for children to be used in an experiment of the gay movement.
You don´t care about the children. You just want to abuse them in order to be accepted in society. You are using the children as a shield. That is immoral.


Dude, STRAIGHT people did those experiments. Children have been being raised by gay parents (their BIOLOGICAL parents) for years. All I'm doing is telling you what they found.

Would you propose taking children away from their gay biological parents?


You can not change the fact: Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality. If all people would be you the human race would die out.
It is as easy as that.
Therefore you should accept the reality. And that is that you don´t have the same importance and status in society.

You have yet to explain to me why it is misdirected. I'm going to save you time and tell you that "gays don't reproduce together" isn't going to cut it. I refuse to accept that relationships are nothing more than baby making machines. I think more highly oif all people--including you.

And if all people were homosexual? All people aren't homosexual. No are they going to be. If all people were carriers of the gene for Cystic Fibrosis, we would all die out too. do you propose banning people and treating those people with CF as lesser because fo that?

I think the reality that needs to be accept here is the one by you. You are a bigot. You judge others (in direct contradiction to your stated beliefs as a Christian--my apologies if I am confusing someone else with you). You don't believe in treating people equally if they aren't just like you.

And here's another reality for you--the countries that have gay marriage already are doing just fine. It doesn't end the world.

You want to know what will end the world though?

Intolerance.

Little kids are going to see these perverts kiss blah blah blah
You need to go ask a therapist why someone ELSE's sex life is so important to you.

I do. But since marriage is a public matter and the definition of marriage a public issue I´m minding also my business by participating in the discussion.

How is it public? How does the government saying "Why yes you can file joint tax returns and make end of life decisions with the person you love and want to spend your life with" make any difference to you?

I agree with this topic creator. Homosexuality is abomination to this earth and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Little kids are going to see these perverts kiss or even worse and raise questions that shouldn't have to be answered. In my high school there was this thing called "The gay straight alliance" where they posted crap posters throughout the school about "tolerance." And they even made us respect gay history month. Thats like respecting nazi history month. Homosexuality should be frowned upon for the disgusting thing that it is.

Do you think we should slaughter all homosexuals, including the animals who exhibit homosexual behavior?

How is it public? How does the government saying "Why yes you can file joint tax returns and make end of life decisions with the person you love and want to spend your life with" make any difference to you?
It's all none of the government's business. Marriage is religion and has no place in government. If a church wants to refuse to marry anyone except heterosexual fast-food workers, that's their right. If a gay couple want to list each other as their insurance beneficiaries, that's their right.

Mixing government and religion corrupts both (to the limited extent that either could become any filthier)

I agree with this topic creator. Homosexuality is abomination to this earth and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Little kids are going to see these perverts kiss or even worse and raise questions that shouldn't have to be answered. In my high school there was this thing called "The gay straight alliance" where they posted crap posters throughout the school about "tolerance." And they even made us respect gay history month. Thats like respecting nazi history month. Homosexuality should be frowned upon for the disgusting thing that it is.
And so we reach the root of the issue...

I agree with this topic creator. Homosexuality is abomination to this earth and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Little kids are going to see these perverts kiss or even worse and raise questions that shouldn't have to be answered. In my high school there was this thing called "The gay straight alliance" where they posted crap posters throughout the school about "tolerance." And they even made us respect gay history month. Thats like respecting nazi history month. Homosexuality should be frowned upon for the disgusting thing that it is.

Yes because homosexuality is so much like Nazism its frightening. Homosexuals have murderred millions of people. Homosexuals have tried to conquer the world. Homosexuals think that people lnot like them are worthless. Homosexuals have committed millions of acts too atrocious to speak about.

OH wait, my bad. Homosexuals didn't do that. Christians did.

It's all none of the government's business. Marriage is religion and has no place in government. If a church wants to refuse to marry anyone except heterosexual fast-food workers, that's their right. If a gay couple want to list each other as their insurance beneficiaries, that's their right.

Mixing government and religion corrupts both (to the limited extent that either could become any filthier)

Though we have different ways of expressing it, I agree with you completely.

When I speak of marriage, I refer to civil marriage--the joining of two people under governmental laws by which they are granted certain rights as a single entity.

Marriage as far as religion goes should be left to teh churches. If a Baptist church doesn't want to marry two gay men, they shouldn't hav etoo. See gays believe in actually giving people their rights. . . .

Oh well, of to dinner with my parents. You know, that man and woman who should've drowned me at birth because I was gay.

Thank god they have brains.

I think any couples being granted special rights is discriminatory against singles! :p

Yes because homosexuality is so much like Nazism its frightening. Homosexuals have murderred millions of people. Homosexuals have tried to conquer the world. Homosexuals think that people lnot like them are worthless. Homosexuals have committed millions of acts too atrocious to speak about.

OH wait, my bad. Homosexuals didn't do that. Christians did.

The nazis weren't Christian they were pagan.

The nazis weren't Christian they were pagan.
I believe you misunderstood his post.

I think homosexuality is mislead and misdirected sexuality.
It denies natural human instincts, desires and concepts of nature. One of those is reproduction.

You'd better tell that to homosexual animals. That are that way naturally. No matter how much you don't want them to be.

The homosexual lifestyle is the portray of an ultra-individualistic and egocentric lifestyle, which is only loking for hedonistic pleasure and for non-reproductive sex.
Shouldn't we ban EVERYTHING that's only for pleasure, then? Games, fiction books, TV shows other than the news, documentaries, and the weather channel, movies, foods like cakes/cookies/etc., sex with birth controls...

This is against nature and the natural reason for sexual activity (reproduction).
Again, go tell that to homosexual animals.

The result is that also under heterosexuals the non-reproductive lifestyle is spreading and less children are born in countries in which the gay community is openly presenting its lifestyle (the most developed countries) compared to countries where this isn´t the case (not only developing countries but also more conservative developed countries like Ireland or parts of the United States).
The Earth had too many people last time I checked. You want more people in those countries, how about having a couple million immigrate from India, Japan, China, etc...


I agree with this topic creator. Homosexuality is abomination to this earth and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Little kids are going to see these perverts kiss or even worse and raise questions that shouldn't have to be answered. In my high school there was this thing called "The gay straight alliance" where they posted crap posters throughout the school about "tolerance." And they even made us respect gay history month. Thats like respecting nazi history month. Homosexuality should be frowned upon for the disgusting thing that it is.
What makes homosexualty more disgusting/preverted than hetrosexuality? And what's wrong with toelrance towards things that don't hurt anybody? And I do NOT like the comparison betwee gays and Nazis. Nazis killed thousands of people. Gays did not(if anything, they were the ones being killed most of the time in history...). Gays are normal people, they can be very nice or be total jerks, they can save lives or take them, they can be tolerant or they can be intolerant, the only difference is in who they love. Discriminating agaisnt them because of that is wrong. Go find a couple thousand posters about tolerance. Read them all. The only time tolerance is bad is when you are tolerent of evil, whether the evil is homophobes like you, Nazis, the KKK, racists, sexists, mass murders, or terrorists.

I believe you misunderstood his post.

Most definitely. Just like he misunderstands history. . .

The nazis weren't Christian they were pagan.
You need to stop getting your history from Indiana Jones movies.

Alfred Rosenberg, a Nazi propagandist, tried to use the trappings of the old Norse religions to promote the Nazi party, but it never really caught on, and Rosenberg himself was a Christian who insisted that Jesus was actually Norse. HItler himself was Catholic, and I'll let him speak for himself here:

"Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."
- Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
- Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

"For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities."
- Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."
- Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

"The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."
- Adolf Hitler, Christmas 1926

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
- Adolf Hitler, 1938

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
- Adolf Hitler, 1941

"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save Germany."
- Hermann Goering

"No matter what human beings do I shall some day stand before the judgement seat of the Eternal. I shall answer to Him, and I know he will judge me innocent.
- Rudolf Hess (at the Nuremberg Tribunal)

If all people would be you the human race would die out.
If all people were fat, pimply, bigoted virgins with no life outside of roleplaying games, the human race would also die out...but we aren't calling for discrimination against YOU.

I agree with this topic creator. Homosexuality is abomination to this earth and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Aw, listen to the little sheep go "ba" like all his friends in the flock.

Little kids are going to see these perverts kiss or even worse and raise questions that shouldn't have to be answered.

Yeah, like seeing you in public.

little boy: daddy, what is that thing?
dad: I believe we call it a bigot.
little boy: it's scary, daddy

Seeing two gays kiss in public is not any worse than seeing a hetero couple kiss... There is really no difference except the genders involved.

And, you know what questions are asked:

little girl: daddy, why are those men kissing?
dad: because they love each other
little girl: like you love mommy?
dad: yes, that's right.
little girl: oh, ok! ^_^

In my high school there was this thing called "The gay straight alliance" where they posted crap posters throughout the school about "tolerance."

Oh, tolerance is such a bad thing! We don't want anything to do with tolerance, now do we? :rolleyes:

And they even made us respect gay history month. Thats like respecting nazi history month.

{sarcasm}
Gee, respect the gays? Now why would anyone want do do that? Hyuck... *mimicks one of those stereotypical southern hick accent* It's sodomy...
{/sarcasm}

But really, how is homosexuality the same as Nazism? Last I checked, the Nazis put gays and Jews in the same gas chambers - it saved money and time!

Homosexuality should be frowned upon for the disgusting thing that it is.

I think you should be frowned upon for you lack of sensitivity and common sense.

Just to interject: The Nazis also needlessly killed thousands of homosexuals and gypsies for the same reason they killed Jews. And they claimed they were doing the Lord's work. Makes you think, huh?

Just to interject: The Nazis also needlessly killed thousands of homosexuals and gypsies for the same reason they killed Jews. And they claimed they were doing the Lord's work. Makes you think, huh?
No, not really. :p (just kidding). You bring up a good point.

Just to interject: The Nazis also needlessly killed thousands of homosexuals and gypsies for the same reason they killed Jews. And they claimed they were doing the Lord's work. Makes you think, huh?
The Nazis were a little weird that way.

The SA ("Stormtroopers") was run by a homosexual rights activist, Ernst Roehm, and homosexuality was very common among this ultra-macho group until Hitler came to see Roehm as a threat.

Once Hitler began to see Roehm and his militia of 2 million as competition, he ordered a purge, and one public reason for this was their homosexuality, but the Nazi leadership was full of homosexuals and it wasn't really something they worried about, more just an excuse to go after Roehm.

Despite the homosexuals who held prominent positions in the Nazi heirarchy, they did start sending gays to the camps eventually...though usually only "femme" ones who couldn't be "reformed", or people against whom no other charge would stick who they wanted to get rid of for political reasons. (Easy to accuse someone of being gay, and hard to disprove)

By all accounts, the treatment of homosexuals and those falsely labeled so in the camps was particularly brutal, though many "masculine" gays were released from the camps...to build up the army toward the end of the war.

Because abstinence is - in difference to homosexuality or a promisculous lifestyle - not causing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Furthernmore it is not undermining society, as homosexuality and the gay movement does (with its demand of gay marriage and other outrageous things).

I think abstinence DOES undermine society. It discourages interaction, which is damaging to social structure, which must, therefore, be damaging to society.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, encourages interactions, and even expands the potential gender roles into self-identified interactions, thus INCREASING social interaction, thus reinforcing social structure. Therefore, homosexuality improves society.

So, if your statement was based on logic (rather thanjust being an anti-gay attack, based on nothing but volume and opinion)... it seems clear that homosexuality is for the betterment of society, while abstinence needs to be STAMPED OUT as the ungodly, social disease it obviously is.

Well I think the fact of the matter is that being gay is unnatural, i'm no naturalist but plainly put physically as humans, people of the same sex to procreative is impossible. Sorry if this is offensive but being gay must be a chemical imbalance or genetic abnomality of something because whether you believe in creationism or evolution or whatever, it is pretty obvious that the survival of humanity is through a female with a male.

Well I think the fact of the matter is that being gay is unnatural, i'm no naturalist but plainly put physically as humans, people of the same sex to procreative is impossible. Sorry if this is offensive but being gay must be a chemical imbalance or genetic abnomality of something because whether you believe in creationism or evolution or whatever, it is pretty obvious that the survival of humanity is through a female with a male.
I'm a redhead. That is a genetic abnormality. And just like homosexuality, it means nothing really unless you happen to be attracted to people with that quality.

If you believe in creationism, well you're a fucking stupid savage, but that aside, then it's God who created homosexuality.

If you believe in evolution, you have to figure that it plays some positive role, because it's been around for thousands of years and was accepted without contraversy in many societies long, long before this Jesus guy came along and co-opted already ancient myths about rising from the dead and whatnot. It arises in different species and cultures, about equally in those that accept or oppress it.

Perhaps it's a reaction to overpopulation? Who knows. What we do know is that if someone else's sexual orientation is getting you all hot under the collar, you need to get laid and/or see a shrink.

Well I think the fact of the matter is that being gay is unnatural, i'm no naturalist but plainly put physically as humans, people of the same sex to procreative is impossible. Sorry if this is offensive but being gay must be a chemical imbalance or genetic abnomality of something because whether you believe in creationism or evolution or whatever, it is pretty obvious that the survival of humanity is through a female with a male.

No - the REPRODUCTION of humanity is through a female and a male (either or both of which COULD be bisexual, of course... or even homosexual).

Survival of humanity is through any grouping that protects the offspring and adults in that society. So - a gay man that acts as a mentor to children, is helping the survival of humanity.

Or, in a more dangerous environment... a gay woman who saves a child from a wild animal, is helping the survival of humanity.

Some people don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that a species survives on more factors than the simple number of ejaculations and gestations.

Well, when you actually look closely at history, actual belief-based genocide is the rarest thing you can find. It's generally just an excuse for polit- or selfish- based genocide, ie - "ooh, people are prejudiced against this group, so they won't mind if I kill them off, thus giving me more power because some of them are threats/people will be scared of me/it'll rally the masses cos they think I believe the same stuff they do".

You think Hitler really believed that Aryan crap? The term is twisted ar from its original meaning anyway, and even if you take it for the generally accepted meaning, Hitler wasn't one. It was usefull to him, thats all. Every successful leader knows how to use his people's beliefs to benifit. We're just lucky if we get one that uses them for the people's benifit rather than his own.

And with regards to the first post - the kids impression depends on what the dad says, not on what the gays do. If the dad says "they shouldn't be, but our damn leftist government won't let us stop them" or something to that effect, it's safe to assume that kid'll be needing a psychologist some point in the future. If he says "Um.. .uh... I... uh... well... you see... ask you mother." Which is what MOST fathers would say, that won't really do any harm, because kids dismiss things so much more easily than adults. And if he did say "Because they love each other" or some variation on that, i'm sure he'd keep in mind the need to explain that there are different kinds of love and this one is like his and mommy's rather than, say, the kids and his best friends, so the kid isn't gonna suddenly start kissing other kids.

Jesus never directly mentioned homosexuality, but it's this lack of mention that is significant. The only things Christ changed from the religion the Jews (and now Christians) follow are the things he specifically mentioned, such as turning the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye, and the lack of necessity of animal sacrifices following his sacrifice. Jesus never mentioned that it was wrong to steal or take his name in vain, and yet it is still considered a sin. So therefore the laws in the old testement specifically Leviticus 18:22 A man shalt not lie with another man, as with a woman: it is a detestable sin, denouncing homosexuality hold true.

As long as gay people aren't forcing their homomancy on you you shouldn't bother them. Calling people preverts for loving someone is kind of like me calling you a Fascist because your a short-sighted prick of a Bigot.

the lack of necessity of animal sacrifices following his sacrifice.
But it's still OK if you're bored, or maybe if you need a little extra juice with the big imaginary sky-man?

Jesus never directly mentioned homosexuality, but it's this lack of mention that is significant. The only things Christ changed from the religion the Jews (and now Christians) follow are the things he specifically mentioned, such as turning the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye, and the lack of necessity of animal sacrifices following his sacrifice. Jesus never mentioned that it was wrong to steal or take his name in vain, and yet it is still considered a sin. So therefore the laws in the old testement specifically Leviticus 18:22 A man shalt not lie with another man, as with a woman: it is a detestable sin, denouncing homosexuality hold true.

Yes but that's only for the "literal word of god" people. And their numbers are steadily being depleted by sensible people, so not much to worry about from that side. I'm sure it's been mentioned before that that's the same part of the bible where they tell you to burn witches?


I'm sick and tired of all these gay-bashing threads. We keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again, and people never listen, because I hope none of us are fooling ourselves into thinking we're here because we actually wonder whether we are right - we're all here to talk, not listen. So shut the hell up and get on with legitimate pursuits, cos every single thing in this thread has been said before, and argued against before, and supported the same way before. You're not convincing anyone, noone's convincing you, so WHY are we here?

You're not convincing anyone, noone's convincing you, so WHY are we here?
I admit that I mostly like teasing the 'tards, but I do learn stuff from some of the others, both those who agree with me and those who are wrong ;-p

I don't understand why homosexuality bothers anyone. If two men want to get married, so what. They're in love, they're happy, I can't think of any reason at all why that effects me in any way, or takes away from my own marriage, should I choose to get married.

A couple of my best friends growing up are gay, and it's something I'm so used to that I'm always surprised to hear that it still upsets some people (and no, I'm not a gay myself, apathetic, or a bad person). Isn't there enough real issues out there to contend with? Tsunamis, war, famine? This is really petty.

I don't understand why homosexuality bothers anyone. If two men want to get married, so what. They're in love, they're happy, I can't think of any reason at all why that effects me in any way, or takes away from my own marriage, should I choose to get married.

A couple of my best friends growing up are gay, and it's something I'm so used to that I'm always surprised to hear that it still upsets some people (and no, I'm not a gay myself, apathetic, or a bad person). Isn't there enough real issues out there to contend with? Tsunamis, war, famine? This is really petty.

Thanks you! It's a miracle! It's someone who actually makes sense. At long last, this person has shone some wisdom into this thread awash in the ignorance that is the religious right!

It's nice to know someone else thinks like that. :D

Well, as long as someone is learning something :P

Hey, we all think like that. We're just making the mistake of trying to reason with the other people on their own terms, instead of ours - I've noticed people do that a lot, myself included. It never works.

By the way, there's that whole thing that a pathetically large amoutn of guys have, where they're all insecure about their own masculinity, and they try to make themselves seem more manly by pointing at someone who they see as less manly because they don't like girls and going "nyer nyer".

my fellow humans.... or atleast whats left of you... why do you care if gay people get married.. kiss... make out or anything??? does it really affect you??? oh let me answer that... nope sure dosent... 1 more thing if a gay, homo, fag or whatever you wish to call them are so bad then why are you leaving the house??? youll run into them weather you like it or not...

-Judicato

P.S. for the Record I am Gay so i can personally say i feel disgusted that you dare hamper or infringe on out basic right of loving who we want! why would you??

Hey, we all think like that. We're just making the mistake of trying to reason with the other people on their own terms, instead of ours - I've noticed people do that a lot, myself included. It never works..
This is in my sig, but for anyone who can't see it or can't be bothered to go back a few pages to where I last said it...

"This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
-Ayn Rand

my fellow humans.... or atleast whats left of you... why do you care if gay people get married.. kiss... make out or anything??? does it really affect you??? oh let me answer that... nope sure dosent... 1 more thing if a gay, homo, fag or whatever you wish to call them are so bad then why are you leaving the house??? youll run into them weather you like it or not...

-Judicato

P.S. for the Record I am Gay so i can personally say i feel disgusted that you dare hamper or infringe on out basic right of loving who we want! why would you??

Argh. My head. It's nice to finally have an actual gay person answering these things, but spelling, grammar and punctuaton are a LOT nicer.

And as I said before, this argument is already in the "rehashing shit" stage, not to MENTION that all the gay-bashers appear to have run away. Why don't we all just drop it and agree that this thread is closed?

Well I think the fact of the matter is that being gay is unnatural, i'm no naturalist but plainly put physically as humans, people of the same sex to procreative is impossible. Sorry if this is offensive but being gay must be a chemical imbalance or genetic abnomality of something because whether you believe in creationism or evolution or whatever, it is pretty obvious that the survival of humanity is through a female with a male.


For the fifth or so time today. Reproduction is not the only means by which a single organism can improve the fitness of a species and therefore aid in its contiuation. Homosexuals produce needed resources in a population and help in the caring of the young without producing young of their own. Therefore, naturally, they can and do occur.

Just look at the fact that we've observed homosexual behavior in pretty much every mammalian species studied. Animals cannot "go against nature" so it must be natural. (interestingly this includes penguins which mate for life--two male penguins will spend their entire lives together, so nature must have intended for gay marriage to occur).

All these "Is homosexuality wrong" arguments on this site are because of gays wanting to be able to be married legally. If you people didnt want to be considered equals we wouldnt have this outburst of anti homosexuality and anti heterosexuality. Im not being sarcastic here. :fluffle: :sniper: Kill the homos!

Jesus never directly mentioned homosexuality, but it's this lack of mention that is significant. The only things Christ changed from the religion the Jews (and now Christians) follow are the things he specifically mentioned, such as turning the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye, and the lack of necessity of animal sacrifices following his sacrifice. Jesus never mentioned that it was wrong to steal or take his name in vain, and yet it is still considered a sin. So therefore the laws in the old testement specifically Leviticus 18:22 A man shalt not lie with another man, as with a woman: it is a detestable sin, denouncing homosexuality hold true.

Actually Jesus did throw out pretty much all of the old law (which he came to fulfill). It can by summed up by two commandments, perhaps you will recognize them.

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. (nothing about persecuting gays).

and

2. Love your neighbor as yourself. (note, there is no qualifier here about them being white, christian, male, heterosexual, southern, baptist or anything else).

\ You're not convincing anyone, noone's convincing you, so WHY are we here?

On the offhand chance that one day, we will. I have seen it done.

Hell, I'll pat myself on the back cause I've changed a couple of minds.

All these "Is homosexuality wrong" arguments on this site are because of gays wanting to be able to be married legally. If you people didnt want to be considered equals we wouldnt have this outburst of anti homosexuality and anti heterosexuality. Im not being sarcastic here. :fluffle: :sniper: Kill the homos!
There isn't any anti-heterosexuality.
There *is*, however, a parody thread of this one.
Nobody here that I know of truly hates heterosexuals.

And what are you suggesting, that gays shouldn't want rights? Shouldn't want to be equal?
Newsflash: Everybody has equality afforded them in the Constitution.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Does that mean I should wank the guy next door? I'm not really into that, guess I can't be Christian.

Does that mean I should wank the guy next door? I'm not really into that, guess I can't be Christian.

Good one.

I say if you are both willing then go for it. But since you aren't and he may not want you to do so and if you loved yourself you wouldn't do that to yourself and you wouldn't want someone to do it to you, then, well you figure it out.

The point is, you don't want the government telling you that you can't marry. If you were gay you wouldn't want anyone telling you that you are an abomination. Further, gays don't hurt you, harm you, or have anything to do with you if you dont'w ant them too.

What's the harm in allowing gay marriage?

Yarg. NOONE IS LISTENING TO ME.

This.

Thread.

Is.

Pointless.


Look, why don't all you gay-bashers just go off and read some playboy articles, and everyone else don't BOTHER with this because it's POINTLESS and no-one is HERE to get their OPINION changed!!!!!!

And WTF is anti-heterosexuality anyway??? I've never seen any!

You know what??

THAT is why the anti-gay people are wrong! Because they are ACTIVELY saying that someone elses life is wrong and/or should be banned! Everyone else is just telling them why this is NOT the case, and we AREN'T actually arguing anything except "your arguments make no sense".

This is why the anti-abortion people are wrong - because no-one is advocating compulsory abortions, but they are advocating compulsory lack of them.

EXTREME VIEWS MUST DIE! YARR!


</rant>

All these "Is homosexuality wrong" arguments on this site are because of gays wanting to be able to be married legally. If you people didnt want to be considered equals we wouldnt have this outburst of anti homosexuality and anti heterosexuality. Im not being sarcastic here. :fluffle: :sniper: Kill the homos!

... u want to kill homo's.... ooooh k?? i honestly hope u have alot of bullets cause your gunna need em 1... and 2 i dont want to have me being married legalized... i dont care all i want is some peace and quite to do what any resonable couple would do!!! go and wach a movie!! so...as long as u guys would quit opening threads i wouldent have to stay this kinda shit!! thx ^.^

-Judicator

p.s. can we close this in a little while im really tired and i got a date

Yarg. NOONE IS LISTENING TO ME.

This.

Thread.

Is.

Pointless.


Look, why don't all you gay-bashers just go off and read some playboy articles, and everyone else don't BOTHER with this because it's POINTLESS and no-one is HERE to get their OPINION changed!!!!!!

And WTF is anti-heterosexuality anyway??? I've never seen any!

You know what??

THAT is why the anti-gay people are wrong! Because they are ACTIVELY saying that someone elses life is wrong and/or should be banned! Everyone else is just telling them why this is NOT the case, and we AREN'T actually arguing anything except "your arguments make no sense".

This is why the anti-abortion people are wrong - because no-one is advocating compulsory abortions, but they are advocating compulsory lack of them.

EXTREME VIEWS MUST DIE! YARR!


</rant>
All the fundies read the "Heterosexuality is a negative influence" parody thread, but only the title or the first post, then got all defensive. Doing exactly what they say gays shouldn't in the situation they're in, except the they weren't even in that situation.

Damn, I hate it when people who are right are incoherent. Igoris, do unto others etc. Leave the poor lil gay-bashers to their hypocrisy and go on your date in peace. Also, use punctuation.

As I mentioned in my last post (sorry if that was a little homicidal-rage-ish) AND most of the ones before, we don't have to be here.

Actually, I don't know why I'M here. I'm gonna just follow my own advice now and go do something productive. See ya.

Argh. My head. It's nice to finally have an actual gay person answering these things, but spelling, grammar and punctuaton are a LOT nicer.

And as I said before, this argument is already in the "rehashing shit" stage, not to MENTION that all the gay-bashers appear to have run away. Why don't we all just drop it and agree that this thread is closed?

nice to have some one clear headed ^.^ hope yea have a nice day

Actually Jesus did throw out pretty much all of the old law (which he came to fulfill). It can by summed up by two commandments, perhaps you will recognize them.

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. (nothing about persecuting gays).

and

2. Love your neighbor as yourself. (note, there is no qualifier here about them being white, christian, male, heterosexual, southern, baptist or anything else).

So your saying that as Christians we can now lie, commit adultery and commit murder, dishonor our father and mother, steal, take the name of god in vain, dishonor the sabbath, be envious of other people, and not believe that god is omnipotent and omnipressant? Wow I sure am glad to know that all these things are now acceptable by Christian faith.

I should point out that it is medically possible for two men to have a child together. The process is prohibitavly expensive and not quite ready for general medical use, but it has been sucessfull in animal tests. So, "homosexuals can't procreate" is no longer a valid argument on any level.

As to everyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, I suggest you try to desensitize yourself to it. Start out slow with futanari hentai, shemale porn, and Femdom/Malesub strap-on porn; then move on to shotacon and yaoi hentai. Finally, try some hardcore live 2 bisexual men/1 women videos. Then try some without any women at all. You may actually find that you enjoy it.

And WTF is anti-heterosexuality anyway??? I've never seen any!


There is some anti-heterosexuality. I went out to the gay bar with a few of my friends once, and a bitter old gay man called a fag hag and told me to get out. Stupidity has no prejudice.

I've leanred that you really can't divide the world by sexuality, race, religon, or what have you. There are only two types of people in the world - tolerant people who want nothing more than for everyone to shut up and just be equal, and jackasses.

Ban the jackasses!

So your saying that as Christians we can now lie, commit adultery and commit murder, dishonor our father and mother, steal, take the name of god in vain, dishonor the sabbath, be envious of other people, and not believe that god is omnipotent and omnipressant? Wow I sure am glad to know that all these things are now acceptable by Christian faith.


But by doing those things you wouldn't be loving others as you love yourself. Its basically the golden rule. If you love someone, you don't hurt them. It's really not that difficult to understand unless you are intentionally being obtuse as to find an excuse to get around it so you won't have to challenge your beliefs by actually. believing. in. them. and. following. them.

But by doing those things you wouldn't be loving others as you love yourself. Its basically the golden rule. If you love someone, you don't hurt them. It's really not that difficult to understand unless you are intentionally being obtuse as to find an excuse to get around it so you won't have to challenge your beliefs by actually. believing. in. them. and. following. them.

I do believe in and follow my beliefs. I just think its funny to sit back and watch everyone get mad at one someone says. I really dont want to kill homosexuals. Honestly the only thing that bothers me is when people of either sexual orientation openly show too much affection in public. It gives little children ideas that that sort of behavior is acceptable. They dont yet realise the responsability that is involved, correction, should be involved with that type of behavior. I do however believe that homosexuality is wrong. I just hope that one day you leave the path that is taking you from god. This is for people of either sexual orientation. Treat your partners with the respect they deserve. Thank you and goodnight.

I do believe in and follow my beliefs. I just think its funny to sit back and watch everyone get mad at one someone says. I really dont want to kill homosexuals. Honestly the only thing that bothers me is when people of either sexual orientation openly show too much affection in public. It gives little children ideas that that sort of behavior is acceptable. They dont yet realise the responsability that is involved, correction, should be involved with that type of behavior. I do however believe that homosexuality is wrong. I just hope that one day you leave the path that is taking you from god. This is for people of either sexual orientation. Treat your partners with the respect they deserve. Thank you and goodnight.

I can respect your beliefs as long as you don't try to force me to live by them. I even agree with you about PDA. As for my path taking me from god, I believe that my path has led me ever closer to god. By accepting myself, I'm more accepting and loving of others. I've worked harder to help others be happy and healthy since I came to terms with myself. My homosexuality has brought me closer to god.

How are you supposed to explain that?

Kid: Daddy, why were those two guys kissing?

Dad: Because they're in love.

Kid: oh.


As for them copying what they see. I don't see why kissing someone of the same sex is that much worse then kissing someone of the opposite sex.

So your saying that as Christians we can now lie.
No, that would not be loving to your neighbor - lies generally have a victim.

commit adultery
See above

and commit murder
See above

dishonor our father and mother
See above

steal
See above

be envious of other people
see above

dishonor the sabbath
No way, Ozzy rocks, even senile and burnt

take the name of god in vain
Well that's goddamn silly

and not believe that god is omnipotent and omnipressant
See above

Wow I sure am glad to know that all these things are now acceptable by Christian faith.
Dude, you should see the wild ecstasy parties the Baptists are having these days!

I should point out that it is medically possible for two men to have a child together. The process is prohibitavly expensive and not quite ready for general medical use, but it has been sucessfull in animal tests. So, "homosexuals can't procreate" is no longer a valid argument on any level.

As to everyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, I suggest you try to desensitize yourself to it. Start out slow with futanari hentai, shemale porn, and Femdom/Malesub strap-on porn; then move on to shotacon and yaoi hentai. Finally, try some hardcore live 2 bisexual men/1 women videos. Then try some without any women at all. You may actually find that you enjoy it.

Just to be clear here, this has never been done in a higher order mammal, either with two females or two males. It *has* been tried, and has failed.

It actually works with two female gametes, but not study I have ever seen has used two male gametes, as there would be no mitochondria involved at that point. If it were to work with two male gametes, an egg from somewhere would probably still be needed.

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.

So good I had to post the whole lot twice just to say "one roflburger please, and skip the anchovies."

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.


Y'know in France there wouldn't be this problem....

...OMG ALL TEH FRENCH ARE GAY!

As to everyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, I suggest you try to desensitize yourself to it. Start out slow with futanari hentai, shemale porn, and Femdom/Malesub strap-on porn; then move on to shotacon and yaoi hentai. Finally, try some hardcore live 2 bisexual men/1 women videos. Then try some without any women at all. You may actually find that you enjoy it.
Aren't you getting them in too deep too soon? They'd be better starting off with shounen-ai and shoujo-ai; at least warm them up to the concept of same sex-love (sans the sexual nature; just the basic human love aspect and a little kissing)...

So your saying that as Christians we can now lie, commit adultery and commit murder, dishonor our father and mother, steal, take the name of god in vain, dishonor the sabbath, be envious of other people, and not believe that god is omnipotent and omnipressant? Wow I sure am glad to know that all these things are now acceptable by Christian faith.
Is the Old Testiment now just some Book? In it, it says " Man shall not lay with Man. " I rest my case.

Saying that exposing kids to homosexuality makes them homosexual is like saying exposing kids to heterosexuality makes them heterosexual, which we know is ludicris.... straight parents dont always raise striasght kids

Y'know in France there wouldn't be this problem....

...OMG ALL TEH FRENCH ARE GAY!
You have no idea how Serois i think that is..lol..

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!!
Wow! good thing you don't live in France, where they kiss each other as a greeting.

Wow! good thing you don't live in France, where they kiss each other as a greeting.
Yeah, better blind fold the children... :D who'd want to see such a sin fest? :p *giggle*

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.
Hey! don't knock drunks!

or Santa

Hey! don't knock drunks!

or Santa
Yeah I want to be a hobo (prefferably drunken) someday , dont knock my asperations

Just to be clear here, this has never been done in a higher order mammal, either with two females or two males. It *has* been tried, and has failed.

It actually works with two female gametes, but not study I have ever seen has used two male gametes, as there would be no mitochondria involved at that point. If it were to work with two male gametes, an egg from somewhere would probably still be needed.

You're right Dem. Theoretically it is still possible. Using modern technology, you could remove the nucleus from an egg and replace it with a sperm and then fertilize with another sperm. Of coursae, you'd have to screen to make sure that there were not two Y Chromosomes. Seems way more complicated than adoption to me. . . :)

Is the Old Testiment now just some Book? In it, it says " Man shall not lay with Man. " I rest my case.

Really? <pulls out a Hebrew Bible> Show me where.

Yes, I'm worried about to much sex on television...
I'm afraid I might fall off.

Homosexuals are so gay!

Closed minded people like you should go keep your Nazi ideology to yourselves and save everyone a load of hassle.

I'm male and yes I have a male partner and we love each other just as much as any man and woman could, we are clean, safe and keep our business to ourselves.

I bet you think that arabs strapping bombs to themselves and killing innocent people for no good reason is acceptable though eh? Even though your own religious texts say that it's wrong to kill you still hypocritically go and do it claiming it's for religion, well god hates suicide and he hates murderers, and yes he hates gay people but i aint religious whereas these people are.

Saying that exposing kids to homosexuality makes them homosexual is like saying exposing kids to heterosexuality makes them heterosexual, which we know is ludicris.... straight parents dont always raise striasght kids
hmmm, and if children take on whatever sexuality they are "exposed to" then doesn't that mean we should be having kids watch straight porn a whole lot if we want them to be heterosexual? why are the conservative Christians so determined to keep sex out of the public eye, in that case? shouldn't they be pushing MORE conspicuous heterosexuality, to ensure that kids are more exposed to straight stuff than gay stuff? and if breeding is what makes marriage important, why do they discourage comprehensive sex ed, when better sex ed will make kids more able to successfully produce healthy babies?

Really? <pulls out a Hebrew Bible> Show me where.
it's on the page across from the one where God orders us to stone to death any person wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. now, given that gays tend to be less likely to wear cotton-poly blends, doesn't that mean that the relative immorality of the sexual orientations evens out?

Come on. They're a negative influence because of their plans for world domination through pop culture propoganda, subversion of the youth, water flouridation, and mind control through psychoactive hair product (I'm looking at you, Paul Mitchell).

I guess that's only negative if you aren't part of the velvet world order. We'll make great pets.

Homosexuals are so gay!

Yes, we are a pretty happy group of people.

it's on the page across from the one where God orders us to stone to death any person wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. now, given that gays tend to be less likely to wear cotton-poly blends, doesn't that mean that the relative immorality of the sexual orientations evens out?

LOL, probably Bottle. I was just pointing out that it only appears to say that in the English translation. When you look at the texts in their original language, however, it is less clear (if not outright wrong).

Yes, we are a pretty happy group of people.
have you heard Henry Rollins' discussion of homosexuality? i shall try to dig up a transcript or something...it's basically a vivid (somewhat graphic) bit on why the term "gay" is particularly appropriate when refering to men who get sex without having to involve women :).

Come on. They're a negative influence because of their plans for world domination through pop culture propoganda, subversion of the youth, water flouridation, and mind control through psychoactive hair product (I'm looking at you, Paul Mitchell).

I guess that's only negative if you aren't part of the velvet world order. We'll make great pets.

Where did you get this information? Now we have to kill you. Please telegram me your name, location, and bank account numbers. Someone will arrive in approx 280days.

LOL, probably Bottle. I was just pointing out that it only appears to say that in the English translation. When you look at the texts in their original language, however, it is less clear (if not outright wrong).
dude, in the original language God is genderless, and therefore all mention of "God the Father" or "Our Father who art in Heaven" or "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" are totally inaccurate. i mean, really, the most famous catch phrases of Christianity are MISTRANSLATIONS! how embarassing.

have you heard Henry Rollins' discussion of homosexuality? i shall try to dig up a transcript or something...it's basically a vivid (somewhat graphic) bit on why the term "gay" is particularly appropriate when refering to men who get sex without having to involve women :).

I havne't, but would love for you to telegram it to me.

dude, in the original language God is genderless, and therefore all mention of "God the Father" or "Our Father who art in Heaven" or "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" are totally inaccurate. i mean, really, the most famous catch phrases of Christianity are MISTRANSLATIONS! how embarassing.

Word up. I also love the fact that if you study medieval portrayals of Christ, you often see him portrayed as Christ the mother. There is even one very famous portrait that shows two Saints suckling milk at his nipples!

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.



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



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.



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 AGREE WITH ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING YOU SAID...
btw, I'm a teacher and yes, we do keep the phrase family open to all types fo families.