NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, why is it such a big deal? It's not like whether two guys or two girls getting married in California is going to affect me in Colorado and vice versa. It doesn't impact families, or endanger the "sanctity of marriage," in any respect, because if that were true, then so does divorce, and we don't see that banned, now do we? My belief is that it should be left to the people affected by the law to decide, not for those of us who wouldn't be. It's not our right to decide whether they who love each other can be together or not.

It makes people feel icky.

It makes people feel icky.
So? I mean, I wouldn't be all that comfortable with two guys or two girls kissing in front of me in the mall, but it's not like their personal lives have any affect on us, nor is it our right to interfere in their personal lives.

So? I mean, I wouldn't be all that comfortable with two guys or two girls kissing in front of me in the mall, but it's not like their personal lives have any affect on us, nor is it our right to interfere in their personal lives.
Intolerance can not be explained in rational terms. That is what you seem to be missing.

I agree with you, PIcaRDMPCia. In Spain, it was recently legalised.

simple: nothing!

Nothing at all.
It's just people that have nothing else to do and, because of their "strong faith" (which I believe is bullcrap and are fake actors to God), must put their tiny hands, AND mouths, on everything they don't see as "right". Get a life.
Clearly it is a sociological reason more than psychological. People feel threatened when a new culture (or minority) enters their realm, and so Gays are "threatening" the way of life to many Puritans here in White Amerika.

I agree with most people on this one. It's between the two "parties". I say parties because my partner is a Giraffe named Julio.

I agree with most people on this one. It's between the two "parties". I say parties because my partner is a Giraffe named Julio.

As long as your giraffe is a magical, consent-giving giraffe, I hope you'll be quite happy together.

As long as your giraffe is a magical, consent-giving giraffe, I hope you'll be quite happy together.
Now let's not tease people for their choice of partner; that's soley their right. ;)
Please, everyone who votes should share their opinion; I'm eager to see if the opposite side has any argument that actually makes sense.

Basicly many Christians (including myself) believe homosexual sex to be a sin. Therefore said Christians see homosexual marriage as glorifying said sin. A comparable idea would be to say to a murderer "here is a town of people in which we allow you to kill any one of them and for it to be ok".

Basicly many Christians (including myself) believe homosexual sex to be a sin. Therefore said Christians see homosexual marriage as glorifying said sin. A comparable idea would be to say to a murderer "here is a town of people in which we allow you to kill any one of them and for it to be ok".
Thing is, it's not in any respect. Nor is it a disease as many people so wrongly and immorally think; there is an enormous amount of documented evidence for homosexuality beyond humans; I would post a link but I do not have one at the moment. So it occurs quite frequently in nature as well. So I ask you: would those animals be considered sinning?
I'm not trying to insult you, of course; it just seems so contradictory to me. Christianity supposedly is supposed to accept everyone, yet won't accept gays because they love people who are of the same sex.

Basicly many Christians (including myself) believe homosexual sex to be a sin. Therefore said Christians see homosexual marriage as glorifying said sin. A comparable idea would be to say to a murderer "here is a town of people in which we allow you to kill any one of them and for it to be ok".
So homosexuality is comparable to murder?

Basicly many Christians (including myself) believe homosexual sex to be a sin. Therefore said Christians see homosexual marriage as glorifying said sin. A comparable idea would be to say to a murderer "here is a town of people in which we allow you to kill any one of them and for it to be ok".

Yeah, except that the murderer would kill himself, so to speak, not some innocent child

I think it is unconstitutional for some US states to ban gay marriage, after all, as it says in the US Constitution "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote our general welfare, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Therefore a ban on two gay people marrying would adversely affect their basic liberties. That's why a ban on gay marriage would be totally unconstitutional!

This is my opinion. I chose 'partially':

The government should cease to recognise marriage by a church (I'm an Anglican, not atheist so please read on)

The government should require people to register a 'civil partnership', providing tax breaks, death rights etc for what we now term 'married couples'.

The people decide in a popular referendum whether a civil partnership can apply to two men, two women, two siblings (as in co-habiting, not incestually), people having multiple civil partners etc.

Leave who can be married (as in the union between two people under God) up to the individual church in question.

So no-one goes away unhappy. If gays cannot get a civil partnership, its because the democratic majority of their country disagree with it, and they should either put up with it or move elsewhere. If their church won't marry them, then their homophobic doctrines should make it almost impossible that a gay would be part of that church anyway. If a church will marry two men (for example), the religious Right (which I'm not part of) can denounce that church, so in their eyes the marriage is not valid, protecting the 'sanctity of marriage'.

Civil Partnerships and marriage under God should have nothing to do with one another. Marriage under God in a church makes no difference to legal status in a secular democracy.

Thing is, I'm agnostic, and my definition of marriage has always been secular. I use the same word for the partnership regardless of whether it is affiliated with a religion or not. So here would be my definition of marriage:
Two people of age eighteen or above who love each other and/or wish to be wed for their own personal reasons.

lmao. For a Natural Occurance of homosexuality, I have to gay male ducks. Yep.

And, just for what it's worth, I'm all for gay marriage. I don't think anyone should be critisized for what they believe either, but I think it's wrong to say "Just because you love another 'guy/girl/same sex' you are a sinner!". Love knows no boundries.

Basicly many Christians (including myself) believe homosexual sex to be a sin. Therefore said Christians see homosexual marriage as glorifying said sin. A comparable idea would be to say to a murderer "here is a town of people in which we allow you to kill any one of them and for it to be ok".

And where in the Bible did Jesus say that you must stop people from sinning by force of law (or any other means)?

Nothing at all.
It's just people that have nothing else to do and, because of their "strong faith" (which I believe is bullcrap and are fake actors to God), must put their tiny hands, AND mouths, on everything they don't see as "right". Get a life.
Clearly it is a sociological reason more than psychological. People feel threatened when a new culture (or minority) enters their realm, and so Gays are "threatening" the way of life to many Puritans here in White Amerika.
Who are you to to judge other peoples faith?, you athiest piece of crap also learn to spell dumbass :mp5: :gundge: :headbang: :mad:

Basicly many Christians (including myself) believe homosexual sex to be a sin. Therefore said Christians see homosexual marriage as glorifying said sin. A comparable idea would be to say to a murderer "here is a town of people in which we allow you to kill any one of them and for it to be ok".

That is not comparable at all.Okay, we're supposedly guaranteed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", agreed? Murder is depriving someone of his/her life -- agreed? Allowing homosexual couples to marry is not depriving anyone of anything.

The people decide in a popular referendum whether a civil partnership can apply to two men, two women, two siblings (as in co-habiting, not incestually), people having multiple civil partners etc.

If gays cannot get a civil partnership, its because the democratic majority of their country disagree with it, and they should either put up with it or move elsewhere.
I agree with your points, besides this one. I don't think that how far civil rights should be extended should be left to popular vote. I think that is tyranny of the majority. I certainly don't think that people should have to move to another country because of it.

Who are you to to judge other peoples faith?, you athiest piece of crap also learn to spell dumbass :mp5: :gundge: :headbang: :mad:
Number one, every word he spelled was spelled correctly; you mispelled atheist. Number two, insulting someone like that means that I shall have to ask you to leave this thread.

This is my opinion. I chose 'partially':

The government should cease to recognise marriage by a church (I'm an Anglican, not atheist so please read on)

The government should require people to register a 'civil partnership', providing tax breaks, death rights etc for what we now term 'married couples'.

The people decide in a popular referendum whether a civil partnership can apply to two men, two women, two siblings (as in co-habiting, not incestually), people having multiple civil partners etc.

Leave who can be married (as in the union between two people under God) up to the individual church in question.

So no-one goes away unhappy. If gays cannot get a civil partnership, its because the democratic majority of their country disagree with it, and they should either put up with it or move elsewhere. If their church won't marry them, then their homophobic doctrines should make it almost impossible that a gay would be part of that church anyway. If a church will marry two men (for example), the religious Right (which I'm not part of) can denounce that church, so in their eyes the marriage is not valid, protecting the 'sanctity of marriage'.

Civil Partnerships and marriage under God should have nothing to do with one another. Marriage under God in a church makes no difference to legal status in a secular democracy.


The problem is that the civil unions which are currently offerred do not provide the legal rights provided by a marriage. This needs to be fixed, does it not?

The problem is that the civil unions which are currently offerred do not provide the legal rights provided by a marriage. This needs to be fixed, does it not?

Yes, if Civil Partnerships are introduced, they should be 'worth' the same in legal rights as governmentally-recognised marriage is now.

Legally binding marriages occur in other religions all over the world. Why not attack those who are supposedly destroying the "original Christian faith"? It's not the business of the church or the country as to which two people are choosing to marry - people are trying to deny that homosexuality is sometimes the only natural course for someone to live their life. I'm not religious in any way really, but how do those who follow religion know that god hasn't changed some of the rules? The bible and its teachings are 2000 years old. A lot has changed since then. If we took everything in the bible that seriously we would never have made all the scientific advances we have today, creativity would never have been allowed to flourish and women would still have no rights. People are also saying that gay relationships are not as serious as straight ones - thus the divorce rate would go up. I sincerely doubt that is even possible. So many people see divorce as just an easy way to end a relationship these days anyway therefore this supposed sanctity of marriage doesn't really exist any more. Just let it go and let those who are gay marry and live their lives as they please.

I think it is unconstitutional for some US states to ban gay marriage, after all, as it says in the US Constitution "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote our general welfare, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Therefore a ban on two gay people marrying would adversely affect their basic liberties. That's why a ban on gay marriage would be totally unconstitutional!


I disagree.

If I am a truly free individual then for example, I would have the right to go fishing whenever I wanted and I would be able to catch as much fish as I want. Fishing doesn't harm anyone, I just sit there and cast a line into the water. But the government sets restrictions on fishing, infringing upon my liberty of going fishing because they want other people to be able to fish and if I caught all of the fish, there would be no more fish to do their fishy things in the water, in turn off setting the ecological balance and order of things. The government restrictions while limiting my ability to fish, still lets me go fishing just under restrictions.

A homo wants to have sex with another man. In all actuality this doesn't affect anyone other than those 2 people. The government interjects with homos because it sets off the balance and meaning of marriage. But if you want to be a homo, you can still go do your homo things, you just have to catch and release just like I do with fishing.

The majority of people do not condone homosexuality, and this is proven through various polls etc. Homosexuality is a cultural taboo in about 95% of the world today. It has been that way for many many many centuries. In a democracy the majority rules, and if the majority doesn't want it, why does the 95% have to cave into the 5%?

Marriage is between man and woman. Mother nature set it up for male to be attracted to female and that is how it should be. It is the way it has always been and the way it should always be. Homosexuals are the bad seeds of the gene pool just like people born with mental illness.

Should a mentally ill person be allowed to drive? After all isn't it every mans "liberty" to own a vehicle?

While these points are sort of extreme, saying that it is a persons liberty to be gay is also extreme. States should have the right to ban gays if they want to and is not unconstitutional.

Everyone has the right to have a private life: why should the goverment decide with whom you can marry???
It's like abortion: the goverment has no right to decide anything in your life... That's my opinion.

Nuge, you are wrong. You are so wrong that it is incredible, especially since you seem like an educated person. Homosexuals are not the bad seeds of the gene pool in any respect; approximately 20% of the US population alone is homosexual, and that's just out of 290 million people. Also, as stated before, there is a large amount of evidence for homosexuality being just as natural as heterosexuality. Homosexuality should not be banned in the least. In fact, one might almost say it's natures way of preventing a species from overpopulating. Either way, we're sentient human beings, and homosexuals are no different from anyone else except in their sexual preference; comparing them to mentally ill people is completely ridiculous.

First of all, here are my two pennies worth:

A Marriage (or in an ideal system, a Civil Partnership) is a great way of sharing rights between individuals such as all the tax breaks, inheritance and next of kin rights etc that married people currently enjoy. My main problem with secular marriage is that divorce is generally very difficult, practically and emotionally. The nature of a relationship should be defined by the people in the relationship, and not by the state. If I want to share rights or tax breaks with another person as a loving partner then we should be able to do that, regardless of sexuality, gender, creed, colour etc. Furthermore, the whole "until death do you part" shouldn't be a part of it at all. If myself and my (hypothetical) partner don't expect to stay together forever then that should be our right to do so, as long as we both understand that as part of the nature of our relationship.

Short version: the government's role in unions should be to sort out the legal rights and nothing more. We, as individual people entering into relationships, should decide what our relationships should be. Churches shoule be able to decide if they want to accept a relationship as a Marriage, and the state should decide if a Civil Partnership for the purpose of sharing rights is appropiate.

Let's not get started on polyamoury or sharing legal rights with family members...

I disagree.

If I am a truly free individual then for example, I would have the right to go fishing whenever I wanted and I would be able to catch as much fish as I want. Fishing doesn't harm anyone, I just sit there and cast a line into the water. But the government sets restrictions on fishing, infringing upon my liberty of going fishing because they want other people to be able to fish and if I caught all of the fish, there would be no more fish to do their fishy things in the water, in turn off setting the ecological balance and order of things. The government restrictions while limiting my ability to fish, still lets me go fishing just under restrictions.
That's just sensible legislation really. You can't take everything the environment has to offer and expect a) other people who want to enjoy the same rights to be okay with this and b) the environment to recover. The legislation might be a pain sometimes, but it can usually be worse, and you think it needs improving then write to your Congressman or start a campaign. Democracies are an excellent (if a little slow) way of finding suitable legislation that is also malleable. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

A homo wants to have sex with another man. In all actuality this doesn't affect anyone other than those 2 people. The government interjects with homos because it sets off the balance and meaning of marriage. But if you want to be a homo, you can still go do your homo things, you just have to catch and release just like I do with fishing.
How does gay marriage affect the "balance and meaning of marriage"? People shouldn't be expected to "catch and release" when it comes to rights that other people enjoy. I'd quite like to see many people restricted to "catch and release" rights with lots of things like drinking, voting, driving etc, but that infringes on their rights as human adults, so it's an indefensible position.

The majority of people do not condone homosexuality, and this is proven through various polls etc. Homosexuality is a cultural taboo in about 95% of the world today. It has been that way for many many many centuries. In a democracy the majority rules, and if the majority doesn't want it, why does the 95% have to cave into the 5%?
First of all, where are your figures to back up your 95% figure? Second of all the tyranny of the majority is a terrible thing. If you look at offical figures of the anschluss plebscite there was an overwhelming majority of Austrians who wanted to see a union of Nazi Germany and Austria. That strengthened Germany no end before WWII, and the vast majority of historians will agree that the plebiscite did represent the views of the Austrian people. So was the 90-something% result accurate? Does it mean that a fascist nation ceding a sovereign nation is okay?

If 95% of the population don't like Hershey's chocolate, should the productiong, transport and sale of Hershey's chocolate be illegal?

Marriage is between man and woman.
Clearly many people disagree. Enough people in the USA disagree to stop the constitutional amendment passing in the Senate. Enough people disagree in several US states and nations throughout the world which allow gay marriages to take place. Democratic nations have significant campaigns for gay marriage, in a similar way to the Civil Rights Campaigns of the 1960s. Times are changing and the concept of marriage is one of those things that is changing as well.

Mother nature set it up for male to be attracted to female and that is how it should be. It is the way it has always been and the way it should always be. Homosexuals are the bad seeds of the gene pool just like people born with mental illness.
That's misunderstanding how evolution works. There is no such thing as "mother nature" which guides the way things evolve. If there was, then mother nature would also be responsible for cholera, malaria and the black death, which have caused a tremendous amount of death and suffering over the centuries. In which case mother nature is not your friend and there is no reason why mother nature should designate a simplistic two sex system to fit your view of the world. Things are more complicated than that. There are more than two sexes, more than two genders and more than two sexualities.

EDIT (Forgot to address this point): Saying that "Homosexuals are the bad seeds of the gene pool just like people born with mental illness" is nothing short of ill informed bigotry. Similar arguments were used by the Nazis to justify the holocaust and the invasion of the USSR, which was the most costly military operation is history in terms of human life and resources.

Should a mentally ill person be allowed to drive? After all isn't it every mans "liberty" to own a vehicle?
No it's not. With every right that we have, we also have responsibility. When you get your licence you have to agree to (give legal consent to) a set of critera. You have to have passed a test (or series of tests) and you have to have all the insurance, tax and legal and financial responsibilities. A mentally ill person who cannot fulfill all these criteria cannot drive.

While these points are sort of extreme, saying that it is a persons liberty to be gay is also extreme. States should have the right to ban gays if they want to and is not unconstitutional.
The points aren't particularly extreme. A lot of forums see people saying "But what if I want to murder someone?" etc (I think I saw a post like that further up)

What I want to know is this: how does one justify legistlating sexuality? Laws cannot change who a person is or how they feel. If it's a moral argument then that also fails, because you can't force someone to act in a certain manner and then say that they are "moral", as they have not chosen to be "moral". Banning gay (whatever you mean by that) is like Iran banning women. It's impossible and doesn't make any sense!

This thread is gay.

If I am a truly free individual then for example, I would have the right to go fishing whenever I wanted and I would be able to catch as much fish as I want. Fishing doesn't harm anyone, I just sit there and cast a line into the water. But the government sets restrictions on fishing, infringing upon my liberty of going fishing because they want other people to be able to fish and if I caught all of the fish, there would be no more fish to do their fishy things in the water, in turn off setting the ecological balance and order of things. The government restrictions while limiting my ability to fish, still lets me go fishing just under restrictions.

A homo wants to have sex with another man. In all actuality this doesn't affect anyone other than those 2 people. The government interjects with homos because it sets off the balance and meaning of marriage. But if you want to be a homo, you can still go do your homo things, you just have to catch and release just like I do with fishing.

Let's see, regulations to sustain local ecosystems, which have very real consequences when tampered with, versus legislation to sustain an archaic view of marriage, which no one has shown to have any negative consequences. Nope, this argument has no validity. Furthermore, you cannot liken a recreational activity to someone else's basic drives in life. There is nothing in your biology that makes fishing a primary need in your existence. Poor example.

The majority of people do not condone homosexuality, and this is proven through various polls etc. Homosexuality is a cultural taboo in about 95% of the world today. It has been that way for many many many centuries. In a democracy the majority rules, and if the majority doesn't want it, why does the 95% have to cave into the 5%?

Because in many democratic countries, there are protections against tyranny by majority.

I've grown so weary of people citing the past as if it's actually some kind of valid argument in and of itself. Unless you can prove that that which is traditional is also fair, ethical, and beneficial, I don't want to hear about it. I don't fear change, so I don't care that you do. Many cultural taboos have been overturned over the centuries, and each time, there always seem to be people who feel that this next one is going to be the end of the civilized world, and feel the need to make a lot of noise about tradition. Guess what? The world's still turning, and we're still here.

Marriage is between man and woman. Mother nature set it up for male to be attracted to female and that is how it should be. It is the way it has always been and the way it should always be. Homosexuals are the bad seeds of the gene pool just like people born with mental illness.

Actually, nearly every species has been noted to have members engaging in homosexual relations, so obviously you haven't been paying much attention to what Mother Nature did. I needn't comment on the rest of this, it's just unsupported drivel.

Should a mentally ill person be allowed to drive? After all isn't it every mans "liberty" to own a vehicle?

Actually, no, driving is a privilege, the law makes that very clear. That doesn't really matter though, it's totally irrelevant - no one's put in danger by homosexual marriage, you said so yourself. If you can't be factual, at least try to be consistant.

While these points are sort of extreme, saying that it is a persons liberty to be gay is also extreme. States should have the right to ban gays if they want to and is not unconstitutional.

No, a person has the right to govern themselves. They have the right to be who they are, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Do you even know what the word "extreme" means? I'd argue that states should have the right to ban prejudicial idiots, who do a lot more harm to the general populace in a year than any number of homosexuals could ever do. But this is also unconstitutional, another term which I don't think you comprehend.

EDIT: Very, very well said, Upper Orwellia. Also, good job to the poster below who notes the incorrect nature of Nuge's claim about that which is historically taboo. I missed that one, and it's a good point.

First of all, F2B, that was really unnecessary. Gay means happy or homosexual but, contrary to popular belief, does not mean stupid. And if you didn't like the topic you didn't have to even view it. I completely agree with the original topic: gay marriage isn't wrong.

And in response to The Nuge, when you say that homosexuality has been taboo for many centuries, you're dead wrong. In fact, in ancient civilizations such as Rome and Greece, homosexuality was condoned. In fact, in Sparta it was encouraged so the men would have something to fight for in battle. Get your facts straight.

Ever notice how the more opposed to homosexual marrige a person is, the worst his/her education tends to be?

There's a reason we've had wars on guns, drugs, and terrorism, but never ignorance.

First of all, F2B, that was really unnecessary. Gay means happy or homosexual but, contrary to popular belief, does not mean stupid.

Oh, so you decide common usage now. :rolleyes:

In that case, I repeal the use of the word gay as meaning homosexual.

What's so wrong about gay marriage?
Absolutly nothing!!

This thread is gay.

Homosexuals are gay.


No, really. They are. :D

I agree with you.

I dont really give a damn about what gay people do. It's not on my high-prorites list and most likely never will.

But anyways, most of the fundementalist Christians are just really, really, really afraid of "gay virus" spreading around. The reason some of may be happening is part in due to the fact of Pat Roberston, Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps bitching and moaning about how they think that gay people are immoral, atheists or Satanists spawned from the gay vagina of the devil sent to poison our world of moral reichfullness. Fuck morals.

Here's something funny though... Why did fundementalist Christians vote to re-elect a President who against gay marriage but yet his running mate has a lesbian daugther?

Only a little while ago, I was watching CNN or some other "news" channel that's sold its soul to gossip stories, and an "expert" was being interviewed on this topic. I remember he that he basically said: if we recognize gay marriages and openly accept homosexuality, then more people would magically become gay in a puff of pink smoke and eventually the species would die out because everyone would be gay.
I saw this, and I fell on the floor and laughed for a while.
I remember when I was a child living in China, waiting for my mother to bring me here to live with her. I would hear all sorts of good things about this place called "mei guo"-the beautiful country. America. And people would say what a wonderful place it is, and rant for hours on end about how people can do whatever they want and aspire to do anything...in America.
Those were nice thoughts to have.
Loves, homosexuality is not a disease. And what's so frightening about acknowledging gay marriage? It's a sin? It threatens marriage? As long as you're not harmed, why bother meddling in personal business?
Go henpeck at the real crimes going on in this less-than-perfect country.
-----------------
on a side note, my friends and I have so much fun freaking out the conservative people at school with our "overly liberal, goth, or grunge" ways...if I could take a picture of every face we get when we sit in history class, stroking each other XD

Only a little while ago, I was watching CNN or some other "news" channel that's sold its soul to gossip stories, and an "expert" was being interviewed on this topic. I remember he that he basically said: if we recognize gay marriages and openly accept homosexuality, then more people would magically become gay in a puff of pink smoke and eventually the species would die out become everyone would be gay.
I saw this, and I fell on the floor and laughed for a while.
I remember when I was a child living in China, waiting for my mother to bring me here to live with her. I would hear all sorts of good things about this place called "mei guo"-the beautiful country. America. And people would say what a wonderful place it is, and rant for hours on end about how people can do whatever they want and aspire to do anything...in America.
Those were nice thoughts to have.
Loves, homosexuality is not a disease. And what's so frightening about acknowledging gay marriage? It's a sin? It threatens marriage? As long as you're not harmed, why bother meddling in personal business?
Go henpeck at the real crimes going on in this less-than-perfect country.
-----------------
on a side note, my friends and I have so much fun freaking out the conservative people at school with our "overly liberal, goth, or grunge" ways...if I could take a picture of every face we get when we sit in history class, stroking each other XD


1. LOL, some people are just stupid... we all become gay in puff of pink gay smoke.

2. I pretend to make out with this other boy on the bus on the ride home from school to freak people out... of course... it's Massachusetts... so I'm not getting much of a response. :\ Ironically, the boy has the same first name as me.

LOL i should try that, considering that Douglas is (i think) the most conservative county here in Colorado.... but then again, I'd probably get into shitloads of trouble with the stupid idiot school admins... Oh well...

LOL i should try that, considering that Douglas is (i think) the most conservative county here in Colorado.... but then again, I'd probably get into shitloads of trouble with the stupid idiot school admins... Oh well...
hey i live in colorado too o.O

The "homosexuals" are vile and detestable and deserve no "rights."

The "homosexuals" are vile and detestable and deserve no "rights."
good job! you just stated an opinion!
unfortunately, you did not back it up with anything.
try again.

hey i live in colorado too o.O

I'm guessing nowhere near Parker, right?

and to Defensor:

Dammit, we're all fucking sick and tired of your fucking game... It was never funny, and it's just old, stale and dead... YOU'RE DONE! :gundge: :gundge:

good job! you just stated an opinion!
unfortunately, you did not back it up with anything.
try again.
It is backed up by Truth. The Veritas Dei...

It is backed up by Truth. The Veritas Dei...
Maybe for you, that's truth. However, love, it's called "separation of church and state".

I think it is unconstitutional for some US states to ban gay marriage, after all, as it says in the US Constitution "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote our general welfare, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Therefore a ban on two gay people marrying would adversely affect their basic liberties. That's why a ban on gay marriage would be totally unconstitutional!

The preamble which you have just quoted, doesn't include any powers. It is soley a letter of intent, on the goals of the constitution. Nobody goes to court and says, but they violated my preamble. it doesn't happen. A constitutional ammendment to ban gay marrige would be legal due to the fact that Congress is supposed to "To ake all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [Section 8]

Gays are overrepresented in the media. There arn't very many gays, but there is a gay person in seemingly like every tv show and movie. Its disgusting.

Gay people supported John Kerry. Many conservatives didn't want to vote for Kerry because they thought he supported the gays. The may very well have ruined the election of a honored war hero who would of lead our country in the right direction, fighting Iraq more intelligently, getting armour to our troops, getting more troops to Iraq to get the job done, and balence the budget, and improve our economic wellbeing. And the gays said they loved him, people don't love the gays, and boom, he lost the election. Gays are selfish.

I would like to see the media take a disintrest in gays. I would like to see the government focus on things that matter, like stop giving american jobs away to the damn asians, and stop letting foreigners come to the country on visas and take our jobs from us.

I think gay people should have the right to marry. Now you may wonder why after all those negative opionons i beleive this. I dislike any piece of legeslation that restricts the rights of the individual, even if those rights arn't specified in the constitution.

I also think that gays would do well to realize that other people think what they do is disgusting. So they should keep it more on the hush. Stop the rainbow parades. and the public kissing. America does not want to see that crap.

It is backed up by Truth. The Veritas Dei...

It's people like you that make me ashamed to be a Christian...

Go back a page and read what I posted...


fucktart...

Maybe for you, that's truth. However, love, it's called "separation of church and state".
Which according to the nazinoob, doesn't exist.

Gays are overrepresented in the media. There arn't very many gays,
Yeah, 18% of the populace is so little.

I would like to see the media take a disintrest in gays. I would like to see the government focus on things that matter, like stop giving american jobs away to the damn asians, and stop letting foreigners come to the country on visas and take our jobs from us.

I think gay people should have the right to marry. Now you may wonder why after all those negative opionons i beleive this. I dislike any piece of legeslation that restricts the rights of the individual, even if those rights arn't specified in the constitution.

I also think that gays would do well to realize that other people think what they do is disgusting. So they should keep it more on the hush. Stop the rainbow parades. and the public kissing. America does not want to see that crap.
1. you made a fairly racist comment...and american jobs are not being "given away" to any race specifically.
2. if gay people can't kiss in public, then why should straight people be able to?

and now we come full circle...

Maybe for you, that's truth. However, love, it's called "separation of church and state".
The Truth is universal...

No, it isn't.

(Seems all he can understand is a sentence or so of text so might as well just leave it at that)

I also think that gays would do well to realize that other people think what they do is disgusting. So they should keep it more on the hush. Stop the rainbow parades. and the public kissing. America does not want to see that crap.

So would you also be all for banning all public displays of affection? Even between heterosexual couples?

The Truth is universal...

Well, here's a concept that seems to keep going over your head...

Not everyone believes as you do, and even quite a few Christians don't beileve like you, so you can stop beating us over the head with your beliefs and opinions anytime now...

The Truth is universal...
well here we go with the Mass Capitalizing for the sake of making Things sound Almighty...

Well, here's a concept that seems to keep going over your head...

Not everyone believes as you do, and even quite a few Christians don't beileve like you, so you can stop beating us over the head with your beliefs and opinions anytime now...
The Inquisition will deal with them later...
Let us deal with the topic at hand.

The Inquisition will deal with them later...
Let us deal with the topic at hand.

What is this "us" that you're speaking of? You can't be so deluded that you actually think that I'm on your side...

The "Inquisition" will deal with nothing. My holy book (a journal I keep under my bed) says so.

1. you made a fairly racist comment...and american jobs are not being "given away" to any race specifically.
2. if gay people can't kiss in public, then why should straight people be able to?

and now we come full circle...

1. Alright, it was a racist comment. But, most of the jobs that are being taken from America are being givin to the orient, especially china. I live in Seattle, and it is the asian invasion out on the west coast. Seriously, have they heard of birth control. And at my college, they walk around the halls and don't speak a word of english. When i travel, i try to speak the language. I beleive the US allows too many immagrints to come to America. Immagrints are important, but they shouldn't be mostly asian.

2. Straight people should be able to kiss in public because most everyone else is straight too, its an excepted thing, its what a man and a woman do. it disgusts many people to see gays kiss. If kissing a girl disgusted a lot of people, i wouldn't do it in a public place. Im not saying ban gays kissing inpublic, i just say they shouldn't

Im not saying ban gays kissing inpublic, i just say they shouldn't

..which is more or less the same as supporting a ban on it.

1. Alright, it was a racist comment. But, most of the jobs that are being taken from America are being givin to the orient, especially china. I live in Seattle, and it is the asian invasion out on the west coast. Seriously, have they heard of birth control. And at my college, they walk around the halls and don't speak a word of english. When i travel, i try to speak the language. I beleive the US allows too many immagrints to come to America. Immagrints are important, but they shouldn't be mostly asian.

2. Straight people should be able to kiss in public because most everyone else is straight too, its an excepted thing, its what a man and a woman do. it disgusts many people to see gays kiss. If kissing a girl disgusted a lot of people, i wouldn't do it in a public place. Im not saying ban gays kissing inpublic, i just say they shouldn't
Maybe it's where you live but in Colorado, the majority of the "immigrants" are illegal aliens from Mexico. Anyway, it's probably wrong to say that most immigrants are either asian or mexican or whatever without doing more research on the whole thing so I won't go on about it. I just know I finally got my green card 2 years ago and it makes me very happy ^^
um yeah I have gone completely off topic...>.<

I'm all for gay marriage, being a bisexual surrounded mostly by other bisexuals or homosexuals (just as friends though, I'm a guy dating/engaged to a girl) and all I see is happy couples, no matter the pairings, and that makes me happy.

Plus, it's fun to have a fundie or two around for some same-sex pairings to be together :D :fluffle: :gundge:

The government should cease to recognise marriage by a church
I'm not sure about other states in the US, I think it's the same in all, but in Washington state, there is no recognition of church marriages. You need a state marriage license to be recognized by the state to be married. The priest/pastor/ect meets the requirements to be the legal officiant of such a marriage and make it legally binding, but it can be done by anyone that is a legal officient for weddings. I know a few druidic/wiccan types who performed druidic weddings for friends. It's legally binding because they are authorized by the state to do marriages.

The govement won't recognize a marriage that is only done within the religion with no offical papework filed.

I also fully think that homosexuality being a sin is pooey. :) I've read the line, Lev 18:22, that is used to say it is. Well, using just that line there is nothing wrong at all with 2 women doing stuff. But looking at the next couple lines it says and specifies activities that, after I compare and think and analyze them, indicate to me that 2 men having sexual relations in an attempt to produce a child is wrong. And I fully agree with that. But just for physical and emotion pleasure and support, nope, don't see anything wrong with that.

If I am a truly free individual then for example, I would have the right to go fishing whenever I wanted and I would be able to catch as much fish as I want.
And that is an anarchistic society, where homosexuals would have no problems whatsoever.


I also think that gays would do well to realize that other people think what they do is disgusting. So they should keep it more on the hush. Stop the rainbow parades. and the public kissing. America does not want to see that crap.
I find any extensive scenes of overt affection to be disgusting. I'm just as offended by 2 guys all over each other as I am if a guy and a girl were doing it. Same for 2 girls. Now if they are walking along just holding hands and share a quick kiss and keep going, yay for them, They are happy.
If you want to 'not allow' something for a specfic group of people, based solely on a quality they have... then would you like gays to have a seperate water fountain at the park?

That last bit is a bit harsh and stirs up some emotions for people, I know. But not liking a {insert Y here} doing something based solely on the fact they are {insert X here} then what is the difference? I don't see it. I can't find it. If there is a difference, please attempt to enlighten me.

Gay or lesbion marriage should be outlawed!
See, God made us so we could find a mate of the opposite sex, make children, then die.
Not to find someone that's the same sex as you and just mate them for fun.
You should only mate if you plan on having children.
All homosexual activities should be outlawed, marriages should be for one man and one women.
Not two men or two women.
This is what I feel like doing to all homosexuals,
>>:fluffle: :sniper:
Man^ ^Man ME ^
Anyway, all gays and lesbions are going to hell. Do you really want to burn in hell? I know I don't. So follow christ and become strait.

Gay or lesbion marriage should be outlawed!
See, God made us so we could find a mate of the opposite sex, make children, then die. Not to find someone that's the same sex as you and just mate them for fun, you should only mate if you plan on having children. All homosexual activities should be outlawed, marriages should be for one man and one women, not two men or two women. This is what I feel like doing to all homosexuals >>> :fluffle: :sniper:
Man^ ^Man ^ Me
Anyway, all gays and lesbions are going to hell. Do you really want to burn in hell? I know I don't. So follow christ and become strait.

If gays and lesbians are going to hell then why shoot them? Why not let them get on with their lives in peace and then let them burn in hell?

For the record, most immigrants (over 50% according to 2001 census statistics) are from far eastern countries.

You know why this is? Because the criteria for immigration involve things like knowledge of the language, secondary education, amount of current liquid funds, among some others. And it 'just so happens' that what you call 'asians' (largely Chinese, from China, but also Koreans and Japanese and Indians/Hindus in large amounts) fit these critera best. The reasons for this involve sociologically studying those other nations, and I won't go into that now. Point is, asians are the best qualified (if one may say that) immigrants.

So, when you suggest having less asians immigrate, what you are in fact suggesting is a directly racist policy, by which people who have superior skills and abilities for contribution to the economy will lose out to people with lesser skills but of a different race. And why? Because you don't like the way that those who you define as 'asian' make you feel.

I wish people would listen to themselves sometimes, and analyze their own arguments before voicing them.

Sorry for the double post, but I am addressing a different topic.

If anyone can prove to me that homosexuals marrying can be in any concrete way directly or indirectly economically, or physiologicaly detrimental to a person outside of that pair of people, I will concur that homosexual marriage should be illegal. However, no argument exists beyond the emotional -- it makes me and others feel icky. That is not a good enough reason for legislature of any kind, for many reasons, among which being the extremely subjective nature of ickiness.

See, overfishing on the other hand, causes indirect and/or direct economical damage. Hence, you get a problem. Considering restricting overfishing is a minimal infringement on rights, that (in most countries and societies) is deemed less important than the economical problems associated with overfishing, laws are usually made to restrict it. Simple as that -- it's a balancing game.

I'm not Chrsitan, but I am still anti-gay. I just don't understand why you can't be one man and one woman. It's always been that way. Generally, non-human animals ar heterosexual. I have seen something on homo penguins, but I still don't think that it was exactly what was observed.

Who are you to to judge other peoples faith?, you athiest piece of crap also learn to spell dumbass :mp5: :gundge: :headbang: :mad:

Haha. Whoops. Seems I caught one!

2. Straight people should be able to kiss in public because most everyone else is straight too, its an excepted thing


again, ima test my logic on this one: chance straight to "white" and assume gay is "black"

"White people should be able to kiss in public because most everyone else is white too, its an excepted thing"

see my point?

Defensor Fidie, and the free villiage, this is a thread for intellectual discussion, not your form of bigotry and gay bashing. If you cannot discuss the subject intellectually, I suggest you leave.
Oh, and Defensor? Here's something special I recorded, just for you: http://us.share.geocities.com/picardmpc/defensorfidie.wav

Thing is, it's not in any respect. Nor is it a disease as many people so wrongly and immorally think; there is an enormous amount of documented evidence for homosexuality beyond humans; I would post a link but I do not have one at the moment. So it occurs quite frequently in nature as well. So I ask you: would those animals be considered sinning?
I'm not trying to insult you, of course; it just seems so contradictory to me. Christianity supposedly is supposed to accept everyone, yet won't accept gays because they love people who are of the same sex.

1) Christians do not "refuse to accept" homosexuals. Many believe that homosexual sex is a sin, that doesnt mean we dont accept them as people (Love sinner, hate sin). If Christians hold something against anyone because they are sinning, then they are not behaving as they should.

2) Animals do a great many things that if we did them they would be sins. Like killing one another over sexual partners etc.

Animals do a great many things that if we did them they would be sins. Like killing one another over sexual partners etc.

Like sticking their peepees in somethign other than vaginas?

I'm not Chrsitan, but I am still anti-gay. I just don't understand why you can't be one man and one woman.
Then don't understand it. But ignorance or lack of understanding is no excuse for bigotry. I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to be religious, but I don't hate religious people- they're free to live their lives as they choose. The same goes for skateboarders- don't understand them, but got nothing against them. Now apply the same to gay people...

It's always been that way. Generally, non-human animals ar heterosexual. I have seen something on homo penguins, but I still don't think that it was exactly what was observed.
I think you'l find that as long as there has been history, there have been gay people. As long as there have been relatively complex animals there have been gay relatively complex animals.

Gay people have a lot to answer for in today's society.

They claim, fallaciously I suggest, that they are denied equal rights. The basis of this is that they are not guaranteed the right to marry the person the "love."

No shit Sherlock, that is, in fact how the system works. Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as everyone else. I know it and they know it. In fact, had they been serious about this they could have obtained a tax determination in California back in the 80s which would really have supported their case. But they didn't. So I suppose this whole "love" thing is bollocks anyway, To them it is all rights, no sacrifice.

But let's get on to the meat of my argument. AIDS.

Yes, that's right, AIDS, the filthy homosexual diesease that was going to kill us all. Not only did the genius homosexuals bring it to this country, they did their damn best to spread it as far as possible.

Then they threatened the straight community with it. Yes the straight people were going to suffer from AIDS just as much as they did. But we didn't. You know why? Because we are not promiscious sodomites. So it was all a big gay lie.

Nevertheless, today, in addition to gay pride parades and fell good about homo days, we have to also contribute to AIDS research.

Listen homos, if you lived like the straight married people you claim you want to be, AIDS would not be a problem - just like it isn't in the straight community.

So here's the deal, cut down on your AIDS, pay all the money back we wasted on your AIDS research - which lets face it is basically a government effort that helps only homosexuals - and then we may be able to talk about you getting married.

There are a few other things that presently ban you too, but I'm not going into them right now.

I thought I would post this here too, to help the homosexual apologists out.

Your entire posts reeks of bigotry, insults, and genuine idiocy. Clearly, you are not educated in this matter at all, though I intend to leave the matter of proving all of your points incorrect to someone who can hit every point.

1. Alright, it was a racist comment. But, most of the jobs that are being taken from America are being givin to the orient, especially china. I live in Seattle, and it is the asian invasion out on the west coast
Am I the only one who abhors this mindset? "They took the job...they must be STEALING IT from us!" No, idiot, they're obviously harder and better workers then you are.

Seriously, have they heard of birth control.
I dunno, a lot of christian fundamentalists want to ban it, so what does it matter if they won't be allowed to us it anyways?

And at my college, they walk around the halls and don't speak a word of english.
OH NOES!

When i travel, i try to speak the language.
I'm sorry, but if you're saying that when you visit another country and find someone who speaks english, that you go out of your way to talk to them in something other then english...well, you're lying. Flat out.

I beleive the US allows too many immagrints to come to America. Immagrints are important, but they shouldn't be mostly asian.
Yeah because...uh...uh...why, again? Right, you're full of shit, forget for a second there.

Besides, asian girls are hot.

2. Straight people should be able to kiss in public because most everyone else is straight too, its an excepted thing, its what a man and a woman do.
They also fuck. Is that allowed in public?

it disgusts many people to see gays kiss.
It disgusts a lot of people to see anyone kiss. Know what else disgusts a lot of people? Feces. Feces is now BANNED.

If kissing a girl disgusted a lot of people, i wouldn't do it in a public place. Im not saying ban gays kissing inpublic, i just say they shouldn't
And I'm not saying you need to forceable shut up because you an ignorant fool, I'm just saying you should.

Your entire posts reeks of bigotry, insults, and genuine idiocy. Clearly, you are not educated in this matter at all, though I intend to leave the matter of proving all of your points incorrect to someone who can hit every point.

No, they reek of the truth. Which is why you dare not refute them.

The preamble which you have just quoted, doesn't include any powers. It is soley a letter of intent, on the goals of the constitution. Nobody goes to court and says, but they violated my preamble. it doesn't happen. A constitutional ammendment to ban gay marrige would be legal due to the fact that Congress is supposed to "To ake all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [Section 8]

Gays are overrepresented in the media. There arn't very many gays, but there is a gay person in seemingly like every tv show and movie. Its disgusting.

Gay people supported John Kerry. Many conservatives didn't want to vote for Kerry because they thought he supported the gays. The may very well have ruined the election of a honored war hero who would of lead our country in the right direction, fighting Iraq more intelligently, getting armour to our troops, getting more troops to Iraq to get the job done, and balence the budget, and improve our economic wellbeing. And the gays said they loved him, people don't love the gays, and boom, he lost the election. Gays are selfish.

I would like to see the media take a disintrest in gays. I would like to see the government focus on things that matter, like stop giving american jobs away to the damn asians, and stop letting foreigners come to the country on visas and take our jobs from us.

I think gay people should have the right to marry. Now you may wonder why after all those negative opionons i beleive this. I dislike any piece of legeslation that restricts the rights of the individual, even if those rights arn't specified in the constitution.

I also think that gays would do well to realize that other people think what they do is disgusting. So they should keep it more on the hush. Stop the rainbow parades. and the public kissing. America does not want to see that crap.


Someone doesn't know his or her history of the media, entertainment, and movie buisness.

Look up on how and why blaxspoitation films got started. Honestly, everything's just going in a full circle...

Am I the only one who abhors this mindset? "They took the job...they must be STEALING IT from us!" No, idiot, they're obviously harder and better workers then you are.


I dunno, a lot of christian fundamentalists want to ban it, so what does it matter if they won't be allowed to us it anyways?


OH NOES!


I'm sorry, but if you're saying that when you visit another country and find someone who speaks english, that you go out of your way to talk to them in something other then english...well, you're lying. Flat out.


Yeah because...uh...uh...why, again? Right, you're full of shit, forget for a second there.

Besides, asian girls are hot.


They also fuck. Is that allowed in public?


It disgusts a lot of people to see anyone kiss. Know what else disgusts a lot of people? Feces. Feces is now BANNED.


And I'm not saying you need to forceable shut up because you an ignorant fool, I'm just saying you should.
HAHAHAHAHA
LOLOLOLOL
LMAO
ROTFLMAO

OOooh my god that was the single most funny thing i have EVER heard... It was...*tear* beautiful!

HAHAHAHAHA
LOLOLOLOL
LMAO
ROTFLMAO

OOooh my god that was the single most funny thing i have EVER heard... It was...*tear* beautiful!

Yes, outsourcing jobs overseas is funny. :rolleyes:

No, they reek of the truth. Which is why you dare not refute them.

Then you have ME to do it, fucker. And I promise I'll make it fun.

Gay people have a lot to answer for in today's society.

They claim, fallaciously I suggest, that they are denied equal rights. The basis of this is that they are not guaranteed the right to marry the person the "love."

No shit Sherlock, that is, in fact how the system works. Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as everyone else. I know it and they know it. In fact, had they been serious about this they could have obtained a tax determination in California back in the 80s which would really have supported their case. But they didn't. So I suppose this whole "love" thing is bollocks anyway, To them it is all rights, no sacrifice.[/quote]
Sorry champo, but there's a lot more behind marrige then love. Look up some of the legal rights behind it, then spew out of your asshole.

Conclusion: you're wrong

But let's get on to the meat of my argument. AIDS.
This is going to be pitiful.

Yes, that's right, AIDS, the filthy homosexual diesease that was going to kill us all. Not only did the genius homosexuals bring it to this country, they did their damn best to spread it as far as possible.
Site your sources. Oh, you can't, because they don't exist. You're fucking crazy. "OH NOES, the homos are trying to kill us all!" You're just as bad as that Defensor shit.

Then they threatened the straight community with it. Yes the straight people were going to suffer from AIDS just as much as they did. But we didn't. You know why? Because we are not promiscious sodomites. So it was all a big gay lie.
Still waiting for sources that don't exist. Ooooh, "sodomites," that's a new one. So straight people are neither promiscious nor inpolite to guests? Fuck it, you won't understand that.

Hey, guess what? Straight people are JUST as fucking easy as homosexuals are.

Oh, and champ, you might wanna look up who has the highest rates for AIDs-I'll give you a hint, it ain't gay dudes.

Nevertheless, today, in addition to gay pride parades and fell good about homo days, we have to also contribute to AIDS research.
Those scientist bastards, trying to save lives!

Listen homos, if you lived like the straight married people you claim you want to be, AIDS would not be a problem - just like it isn't in the straight community.
If I haven't made it clear, let me do it a bit better now.

http://img141.exs.cx/img141/9479/poop8qj.jpg

Straight peoiple get AIDs FASTER THEN HOMOSEXUALS DO. YOU DUMB SHIT.

Plus, why would they want to live like straight married people? I mean, a 50% divorce rate is pitiful.

Blahblahblah lets face it, do I really need to type anything else? He's obviously just some idiot maggot who knows nothing about the world and how things ACTUALLY work.

Now fuck off.

Then you have ME to do it, fucker. And I promise I'll make it fun.



Sorry champo, but there's a lot more behind marrige then love. Look up some of the legal rights behind it, then spew out of your asshole.

Conclusion: you're wrong


This is going to be pitiful.


Site your sources. Oh, you can't, because they don't exist. You're fucking crazy. "OH NOES, the homos are trying to kill us all!" You're just as bad as that Defensor shit.


Still waiting for sources that don't exist. Ooooh, "sodomites," that's a new one. So straight people are neither promiscious nor inpolite to guests? Fuck it, you won't understand that.

Hey, guess what? Straight people are JUST as fucking easy as homosexuals are.

Oh, and champ, you might wanna look up who has the highest rates for AIDs-I'll give you a hint, it ain't gay dudes.


Those scientist bastards, trying to save lives!


If I haven't made it clear, let me do it a bit better now.

http://img141.exs.cx/img141/9479/poop8qj.jpg

Straight peoiple get AIDs FASTER THEN HOMOSEXUALS DO. YOU DUMB SHIT.

Plus, why would they want to live like straight married people? I mean, a 50% divorce rate is pitiful.



Now fuck off.


Yes, another one of your clear refutations Goed. Well done, I'm sure if you look hard the treaty of Tripoli covers this too.

Straight people get AIDS faster, by that I assume you mean that they develop full blown AIDS more quickly after infection with HIV(VII) than homos do. Yeah, they do, because homos have better access to HIV treatment than striaght people in this country. But nevermind, you probably fell good about that, because people who don't expose themselves to the virus deserve it more anyway.

Now what was the rest of your dribble. Oh yes something about those scientist bastards: Why is so much funding AIDS research when clearly it is not a problem for normal married couples? BECAUSE GAYS DON"T REALLY WANT TO GET MARRIED. It's just another example of their two faced approach to society. Give up AIDS research, or at least drop it to the level of CF, and then we can talk marriage.

Oh while I am at it, I suggest you look up the legal rights behind marriage, and you will find that gay people have exactly the same rights as everyone else.

Blah blah blah blah I can't cite any sources

**coughs**

No, they reek of the truth. Which is why you dare not refute them.
Fine...I wanted to leave it to someone who had every single fact at their fingertips, but if you want, I shall refute them then...racist bastard.
Gay people have a lot to answer for in today's society.

They claim, fallaciously I suggest, that they are denied equal rights. The basis of this is that they are not guaranteed the right to marry the person the "love."

No shit Sherlock, that is, in fact how the system works. Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as everyone else. I know it and they know it. In fact, had they been serious about this they could have obtained a tax determination in California back in the 80s which would really have supported their case. But they didn't. So I suppose this whole "love" thing is bollocks anyway, To them it is all rights, no sacrifice.
quote]
Where do they have the same rights at all? They don't, idiot, or else the issue would not be so important. Try backing up your claims with facts.
[quote]
But let's get on to the meat of my argument. AIDS.

Yes, that's right, AIDS, the filthy homosexual diesease that was going to kill us all. Not only did the genius homosexuals bring it to this country, they did their damn best to spread it as far as possible.

Then they threatened the straight community with it. Yes the straight people were going to suffer from AIDS just as much as they did. But we didn't. You know why? Because we are not promiscious sodomites. So it was all a big gay lie.

Myth: AIDS is spread only by homosexuals and was brought to the US by homosexuals.
Fact: AIDS developed in Africa originally, and was spread mostly via unclean needles by drug users. A huge number of heterosexuals are infected with AIDS, and I'd love to see you try to prove your statement that gays are trying to spread it everywhere. They're not, at all. Not to mention you're also wrong in believing homosexuals think only about sex; they're just like everyone else, except they like someone of the same gender.

Nevertheless, today, in addition to gay pride parades and fell good about homo days, we have to also contribute to AIDS research.

Listen homos, if you lived like the straight married people you claim you want to be, AIDS would not be a problem - just like it isn't in the straight community.

So here's the deal, cut down on your AIDS, pay all the money back we wasted on your AIDS research - which lets face it is basically a government effort that helps only homosexuals - and then we may be able to talk about you getting married.

There are a few other things that presently ban you too, but I'm not going into them right now.
AIDS is a problem no matter who you are, dumbass; AIDS is spread throughout both this nation and the world quite far, even to the point of a pandemic at the moment, though it is mostly concentrated in Africa. AIDS research benifits all. What if a terrorist organization created an air-born form of AIDS? What would say then, hmm? Would AIDS still be a "homosexual problem" to you? I'd think not, especially since it has never been a purely homosexual problem.
Fact is, you're just a racist asshole who hates gays for no reason. Try linking up with the KKK; I think they just might like your ideas. Oh, and if you come back with some dumbass statement that does not have facts to back it up, you only prove my point.
And everyone else please forgive my swearing; I'm very tired, which was another reason I hadn't wanted to refute his statements.

**coughs**

That's it. Your big comeback. Well done Goed. You really made a fool out of me. I guess the spreading AIDS plague amongst straight people was a really big issue in the last election.

Oh that's right it wasn't.

You are wrong, now stop being a puppet for those despicable homosexuals.

That's it. Your big comeback. Well done Goed. You really made a fool out of me. I guess the spreading AIDS plague amongst straight people was a really big issue in the last election.

Oh that's right it wasn't.

You are wrong, now stop being a puppet for those despicable homosexuals.
Continue your insulting comments towards homosexuals and I will report you to the moderation staff. And Myrth does not take kindly to people who are bigoted like you...bastard.

Once again, I fail to cite sources!
**coughs a bit louder**

Who has the right to marry a man?
Who has the right to marry a woman?

Until the answer to both questions is "any unmarried adult" then there's inequality. It's as simple as that.

Fine...I wanted to leave it to someone who had every single fact at their fingertips, but if you want, I shall refute them then...racist bastard.
Where do they have the same rights at all? They don't, idiot, or else the issue would not be so important. Try backing up your claims with facts.

Myth: AIDS is spread only by homosexuals and was brought to the US by homosexuals.
Fact: AIDS developed in Africa originally, and was spread mostly via unclean needles by drug users. A huge number of heterosexuals are infected with AIDS, and I'd love to see you try to prove your statement that gays are trying to spread it everywhere. They're not, at all. Not to mention you're also wrong in believing homosexuals think only about sex; they're just like everyone else, except they like someone of the same gender.

AIDS is a problem no matter who you are, dumbass; AIDS is spread throughout both this nation and the world quite far, even to the point of a pandemic at the moment, though it is mostly concentrated in Africa. AIDS research benifits all. What if a terrorist organization created an air-born form of AIDS? What would say then, hmm? Would AIDS still be a "homosexual problem" to you? I'd think not, especially since it has never been a purely homosexual problem.
Fact is, you're just a racist asshole who hates gays for no reason. Try linking up with the KKK; I think they just might like your ideas. Oh, and if you come back with some dumbass statement that does not have facts to back it up, you only prove my point.
And everyone else please forgive my swearing; I'm very tired, which was another reason I hadn't wanted to refute his statements.


Fact, aids in the US was first diagnosed in the San Fransico community. I don't know where they got it from; africa probably.

Indeed, aids was not in fact, and never has been spread mostly by unclean users of IV drug needles. If that was the case, everyone in certain localities in the UK would have it.

HIV infection risk groups is as follows:

!. Gay men.

2. Bisexual men.

3. Female Partners of Bisexual men.

4. IV drug users.

5. Straight men/women.

6. Lesbians.

Now stop flaming me.

And I am not racist either. My girlfriend is Chinese.

Again, you do not offer proof. Plus, by your statements in your own thread you clearly don't understand anything about the subject of AIDS at all, so this argument is moot.

moot, hah, thats a nice word.

Again, you do not offer proof. Plus, by your statements in your own thread you clearly don't understand anything about the subject of AIDS at all, so this argument is moot.

I know more about it that you. To start with it isn't even really called HIV.

I know more about it that you. To start with it isn't even really called HIV.
Then that's all you say? Come on; I believe I know more about it than you. First, AIDS is a result of the HIV virus; a person can have HIV for years and not have AIDS. Secondly, you persist in the belief that it is passed on only by anal sex, when it fact the HIV virus is transferred in just about any exchange of fluids between two people, barring kissing, of course. Third, you persist in believing that it is a problem of only homosexuals, when this is frankly not the case at all. Fourth, you persist in only looking at US cases and ignoring the rest of the world.
Fifth, you're clearly intolorant of gays and that right there makes me stop this argument because I may not be able to help snapping at you for your foolish beliefs.

I know more about it that you. To start with it isn't even really called HIV.


no no no, you have shown us you know JACK SHIT.


what it SHOULD say:


Oh, silly me! I Do not have a medical degree, thefore i cannot say what hiv/aids is or is not! silly me! wheres my dildo?


you can express opinion, but dont make stuff up.

Ok, people. Calm down. Continuing like this is going to let him complain about being flamed. Being right doesn't mean the mods won't slap you for flaming.

yes, indeed.


hey, wheres the admins' dicksucker, anyway?

Ok, people. Calm down. Continuing like this is going to let him complain about being flamed. Being right doesn't mean the mods won't slap you for flaming.
Which is why I will not continue to debate him; I don't want to flame him because I snapped due to my current sleepyness.

Which is why I will not continue to debate him; I don't want to flame him because I snapped due to my current sleepyness.

Good call. I'd hate to see people on my side of the debate get warned. At the very least, it'll make it harder to complain about him.

yes, indeed.


hey, wheres the admins' dicksucker, anyway?

...
:confused:

Then that's all you say? Come on; I believe I know more about it than you. First, AIDS is a result of the HIV virus; a person can have HIV for years and not have AIDS. Secondly, you persist in the belief that it is passed on only by anal sex, when it fact the HIV virus is transferred in just about any exchange of fluids between two people, barring kissing, of course. Third, you persist in believing that it is a problem of only homosexuals, when this is frankly not the case at all. Fourth, you persist in only looking at US cases and ignoring the rest of the world.
Fifth, you're clearly intolorant of gays and that right there makes me stop this argument because I may not be able to help snapping at you for your foolish beliefs.

Actually no, AIDS is just an immune sytem failure. It can be induced without any virus. (Being a syndrome and all).

Secondly, I never said that the only way to transmit HIV was thorugh anal sex, I just said that anal sex was the primary mechanism.

Thirdly, why do you omit kissing, it can be transferred that way given the right conditions. (Though it is even more unlikely than vaginal sex).

Fourthly, snap away, I won't be bothered. I'd be more bothered if you don't think about what I have told you.

ima go to sleep at 2 pm today.


ima go get me an xbox



i never get presents at christmas.... its too expensive...


i got for the 75% off 4.99 games at nebraska furniture mart...


ooh, i got a new topic, check the general topics page in aobut 15 minutes.

no no no, you have shown us you know JACK SHIT.


what it SHOULD say:





you can express opinion, but dont make stuff up.

Yes, well continue misquoting me. I think that actually counts as a flame.

And it isn't really called HIV either, which one seconds research would tell you.

Actually no, AIDS is just an immune sytem failure. It can be induced without any virus. (Being a syndrome and all).

Secondly, I never said that the only way to transmit HIV was thorugh anal sex, I just said that anal sex was the primary mechanism.

Thirdly, why do you omit kissing, it can be transferred that way given the right conditions. (Though it is even more unlikely than vaginal sex).

Fourthly, snap away, I won't be bothered. I'd be more bothered if you don't think about what I have told you.
No, it cannot be. AIDS is the direct result of the HIV virus; there has never been a case where someone who had AIDS was not HIV positive. If you can prove me wrong on that, however, I will concede that point.
Anal sex is not the primary mechanism, and that's what you seem to be missing; it is quite prevalent among heterosexuals, and heterosexuals go more for vaginal sex, which has a higher likelihood of infection than anal sex does, than they go for anal sex.
I omitted kissing because the saliva tends to destroy the HIV virus before it can transmit, hence making it an extremely rare case. Again, vaginal sex has a higher likelihood than anal sex does.
No, I won't snap, because I refuse to. However, you did not address my other points.

damnit.. hiv is it's starting form, its when it is dormant in the immune system.



hiv is unlike any other virus because it actually attaches itself to the antibodies, the things meant to kill viruses.


treatments for aids often kill the immune system, making a common cold deadly.


and yes, IT IS STILL CALLED HIV. as well as aids.


report me for flaming. tarnish what little bit of respect you have. hell, i even still have respect for your being the punching bag tonight.

well now, this thread has gone all to hell...*shakes her head* damn trolls.

Straight people get AIDS faster, by that I assume you mean that they develop full blown AIDS more quickly after infection with HIV(VII) than homos do.


No. By that he meant that there are more newly infected heterosexuals each year than there are newly infected gay men each year. Look up some stats. And by the way, the group who's being infected at the fastest rate lately, regardless of sexual orientation, are addicts to injectable drugs. AIDS doesn't discriminate according to sexual orientation. Unlike you.


BECAUSE GAYS DON"T REALLY WANT TO GET MARRIED.


Sorry to disappoint you, buddy. They do. How do I know that, you ask?

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

I thought I would post this here too, to help the homosexual apologists out.

Yeah, people tend to avoid something when you smear crap all over it. ;)

Here's a hint, punching bag: No one cares about what you claim to be facts unless you attach a URL to it. Unless you do that, recognize that all you have is an unsubstantiated opinion and that you'll be treated like a whacko (quite justifiably, as I see it).

Funny, where did the guy saying that gay marriage rings the end of civilization as we know it? I wanted him to react to my post... I REALLY want to know what makes it possible for Canada to have gay marriage with a reaction of "So what?Nobody cares... That ain't changing' anythin' in our lvies" while gay marriage in the USA would mean collapse of the US government and destruction of the country by divine thunder and holy fire...

Oh, so you decide common usage now. :rolleyes:

In that case, I repeal the use of the word gay as meaning homosexual.

Um, no, I don't decide common usage. Common usage is whatever it wants to be but does not determine the actual meaning of the word. To make "homosexual" mean "stupid" is just rude, is all.

There's nothing wrong with it. Unless you're a theist consumed with your own arrogance and hubris, who is obsessed with forcing everyone to conform to your views of right and wrong. Then I guess there's a lot wrong with it. :)

Of COURSE all I'm saying is facts! What, you want a link to prove it?! Well...uh...tough!

Getting old...

*bumps* I believe that there could be some worthy discussion yet in here, if we can avoid our General "friend."

That's the whole problem, right there.

If we're going to say that marriage is OK between any two adults (any combination of two people, male or female), then we might as well say that any marriage between any number of adults in any combination is OK.
So we have to say that polygyny and polygamy are OK. After all, the same arguments could be made.

I'm sure the Mormons will be happy.

Gay people supported John Kerry. Many conservatives didn't want to vote for Kerry because they thought he supported the gays. The may very well have ruined the election of a honored war hero who would of lead our country in the right direction, fighting Iraq more intelligently, getting armour to our troops, getting more troops to Iraq to get the job done, and balence the budget, and improve our economic wellbeing. And the gays said they loved him, people don't love the gays, and boom, he lost the election. Gays are selfish.

You're blaming the gays for the fact that people hate them? I think that the homophobes are at fault, because they are the ones doing the actual hating.

The "homosexuals" are vile and detestable and deserve no "rights."
Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Gay or lesbion marriage should be outlawed!
See, God made us so we could find a mate of the opposite sex, make children, then die.
Not to find someone that's the same sex as you and just mate them for fun.
You should only mate if you plan on having children.
All homosexual activities should be outlawed, marriages should be for one man and one women.
Not two men or two women.
This is what I feel like doing to all homosexuals,
>>:fluffle: :sniper:
Man^ ^Man ME ^
Anyway, all gays and lesbions are going to hell. Do you really want to burn in hell? I know I don't. So follow christ and become strait.
This guy has got to be one of those "right-wing parodies".

I'm not Chrsitan, but I am still anti-gay. I just don't understand why you can't be one man and one woman. It's always been that way. Generally, non-human animals ar heterosexual. I have seen something on homo penguins, but I still don't think that it was exactly what was observed.
Gays have always existed, it has just been more hidden in the past.

I thought I would post this here too, to help the homosexual apologists out.
You are so wrong, you think that AIDS was invented by gays to wipe out heterosexuals. You remind me of those Nazi "Jewish conspiracy" people.

Why is so much funding AIDS research when clearly it is not a problem for normal married couples? BECAUSE GAYS DON"T REALLY WANT TO GET MARRIED. It's just another example of their two faced approach to society. Give up AIDS research, or at least drop it to the level of CF, and then we can talk marriage.
If we give up AIDS research, then a lot of people, straight and gay, will die.

Homophobes, why don't you just let the gays be? Isn't it easier to just not care than to hate?

And who really benefits?

Homophobes, why don't you just let the gays be? Isn't it easier to just not care than to hate?
I agree.
Anyway, if the issue is that marrage is currently defined as "between a man and a woman," than call it a civil union, and give the same benifits! And what should anyone give a damn about who people are attracted to? :headbang:

If we're going to say that marriage is OK between any two adults (any combination of two people, male or female), then we might as well say that any marriage between any number of adults in any combination is OK.
So we have to say that polygyny and polygamy are OK. After all, the same arguments could be made.

I'm sure the Mormons will be happy.


If each party in the situation is consenting, I see no problem with it. There are group marriages in other parts of the world, and some(possibly many) of them make every person in the group very happy.

I agree.
Anyway, if the issue is that marrage is currently defined as "between a man and a woman," than call it a civil union, and give the same benifits! And what should anyone give a damn about who people are attracted to? :headbang:


The problem is that civil unions currently do NOT give the same benefits.

Perhaps the legal side of marriage should be re-named "civil union" and the "marriage" would be the church-sanctioned ceremony. That way the groups who are getting all pissy about it can say that they do not allow "gay marriage" , but homosexual couples will have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

I read about a guy who wanted to marry a lifesized poster of Madonna a few years back. No one was defending his civil liberties, maybe because he wasn't the latest trendy cause for the PC crowd to flock to.

I read about a guy who wanted to marry a lifesized poster of Madonna a few years back. No one was defending his civil liberties, maybe because he wasn't the latest trendy cause for the PC crowd to flock to.

Great, another dumbass statement.

Things like this have been covered already. The inanimate object cannot give legal consent. End of story.