NationStates Jolt Archive

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?
*loads gun*

You might want to check a dictionary before going too much further.

(in all seriousness)

I agree, 1234554321, but you don't take it far enough - I say the government gets out of marriage altogether!

Everybody can have their Civil Unions, and the tax benefits (and such) of marriage will subsequently become part of Civil Unions.

I believe that homosexuality should be punished, but not by death, just by taking away some rights, not too many, and taxing them more.
That is more 'nice' :p .
but I would not let them go off and create too ig of a deal about it.

What exactly says this?

I like how people use the meaning of a word to justify some kind of social policy. They don't realize that the meaning of words is dictated by their use. If we start calling same sex unions marriage then the word marriage comes to encompass that too. The word cool used to refer only to temperature and gay used to only mean happy. Its a living language, this happens all the time.

I could care less if homosexuals get married. let em for all i care. it dosen't really matter.

Yup, what the government needs to do is to remove the power of the church to grant the marraige license. ONly the government could grant the license, and of course, as is constitutional, the thing cannot be denied to any applicant. Churches could decide whom they grant the ceremony to.

One thing though, I have one problem with gays, that is they ruined things for straights like sailor uniforms. Noone will be caught dead in those anymore. The gays wanted to play a little dress up and there it went. Same with some names like Butch.

One thing though, I have one problem with gays, that is they ruined things for straights like sailor uniforms. Noone will be caught dead in those anymore. The gays wanted to play a little dress up and there it went. Same with some names like Butch.
They also made it impossible for straight men to wear leather chaps.

They also made it impossible for straight men to wear leather chaps.

Yeah.

They also made it impossible for straight men to wear leather chaps.
Or bondage outfits.
:D

They also made it impossible for straight men to wear leather chaps.
Or feather boas and lipstick.

Or feather boas and lipstick.
Alright, we get the point.

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?

Since your defintion of "marriage" is also the Christian definition, should we only allow a Jewish man and a Jewish woman or an Atheist man and an Atheist woman to be forced to define their own Union?

I know you're just trolling, but if you're going to be a troll, be a smart troll.

I agree completely with the goverment issuing martial union licienses, as for the sailor thing, I am strait and now just to show it can be done, I'm going out later tonight in a sailor outfit! lol

Everyone has the right to be happy as long as that happiness doesn't come at the expense of others. Who is being hurt by giving gay people the same basic rights as everyone else? Every person on the planet should have the right to marry who they love.

I believe that homosexuality should be punished, but not by death, just by taking away some rights, not too many, and taxing them more.
That is more 'nice' :p .
but I would not let them go off and create too ig of a deal about it.


As for punishing people for being gay, thats utterly ridiculous no matter how small a punishment it is. How can you justify punishing someone for something they can't control? Not to mention even if they could control their sexual orientation, it still wouldn' be anyone's business but their own.

I believe that homosexuality should be punished, but not by death, just by taking away some rights, not too many, and taxing them more.
That is more 'nice' :p .
but I would not let them go off and create too ig of a deal about it.


Homos are sick if you ask me, who would want to lay another woman? I mean, if you're a woman in the first place. I think they should get jailed for a year. And I think the government should pry into marriges more-- to make sure no one is slipping up about things, like abuse, for one thing.

"Do not practice HOMOSEXUALITY, for it is a detestible sin" Leviticus 18:22

Or feather boas and lipstick.

Or thongs and bras

This is such an obvious troll. Every day the forum has some traditionalist preaching about gays.

Don't you ever get tired of wallowing in this dead end subject?

I think marriage is a tradional thing, one of the traditional things that should be left alone. It has been also more of a religious union or has been in the past anyway. It would be a smack in the face of the church to turn something that usually takes place in one and turn it into something that goes against the church's own tenants. Look what happened when some English king decided to have a divorce against the church, thousands of catholics were killed and monasteries burnt to the ground. Now while I don't think that would happen, I do think it would cause even more people to discriminate against gays in a attempt to counteract. The more extreme one side gets the more extreme the other side is going to get in order to achieve the balance.

I do think that they should be allowed to have civil unions or whatever they want to call it, I don't even care if it has the exact same standing as a marriage, it just shouldn't be called marriage. If you really think about it, it is discriminatory against those who hold marriage as a traditional man and women union and would like it to mean something more to them.

Everyone has the right to be happy as long as that happiness doesn't come at the expense of others. Who is being hurt by giving gay people the same basic rights as everyone else? Every person on the planet should have the right to marry who they love.

As for punishing people for being gay, thats utterly ridiculous no matter how small a punishment it is. How can you justify punishing someone for something they can't control? Not to mention even if they could control their sexual orientation, it still wouldn't be anyone's business but their own.

Not to be rude, but IT IS A CHOICE TO BE HOMO, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE A DISEASE! Therapists make EVERYONE think that EVERYTHING is a disease these days..... :sniper:

This is such an obvious troll. Every day the forum has some traditionalist preaching about gays.

Don't you ever get tired of wallowing in this dead end subject?

No

So what you want, more than not letting gays marry is to have government control over the language. What are we, France (yes, they have a govenrnment board to decide what is and isn't proper French language)? I mean, if gays can call it marriage instead of a "Civil Union" then we'll start calling crackers bread and the whole country will break down. Mariage should be a contract like any other as far as the government is concerned. If the two people want to sign a contract saying they will share everything and have certain rights such as hospital visitation why is it the government's place to say who can have that contract or what we should call it?

And by the way, why is it that we give tax breaks to married people? "Oh, you're in love, how wonderful, clearly now you will be using fewer of the services of the government so please, have more money."

There is absolutely no need for the government to define a word for us. If we were to give gays equal rights as straights than we would be giving them what is essentially marriage, and it's not as if we wouldn't call it marriage. All civil unions create is segrigation. I ask you, what's wrong with giving blacks their own schools as long as they're just as good?

Also, is it just me or does it seem like anyone who says that it's a choice to be gay is saying that they could be gay if they wanted to be. Now, I certainly know that I couldn't just become gay. I'm not programed to love another man. My little brother happens to be, and it's not like one day he just decided to be gay, he's been that way from the start, he always had more friends that were girls and always played with Barbies and such. But you know, if you can just choose to be gay maybe you should try it out. Seems like it would have its benefits. I envy you being able to be gay whenever you want.

Not to be rude, but IT IS A CHOICE TO BE HOMO, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE A DISEASE! Therapists make EVERYONE think that EVERYTHING is a disease these days..... :sniper:
Well, that is being a bit rude.
I quite certainly wouldn't have chosen it if I had gotten a say in the matter, but I didn't. Nuff said.

This is such an obvious troll. Every day the forum has some traditionalist preaching about gays.

Don't you ever get tired of wallowing in this dead end subject?

We TRADITIONALISTS are trying to fight for our way, no matter what other people think and/or say.

Not to be rude, but IT IS A CHOICE TO BE HOMO, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE A DISEASE! Therapists make EVERYONE think that EVERYTHING is a disease these days..... :sniper:

Its not a disease, noone thinks that, its just something you are born with.

But you have to think that there is something wrong with gay people. I mean, most of them are nice people and are pretty normal, you know, same intelligence as everyone else. But we are created to reproduce, so when you think about it. A man trying to impregnate another man and a women trying to impregnate another women is just kind of rediculous. So when you get right down to it, it is kind of messed up. Sort of like freaks of nature, but not really

But do you get what Im saying?

So what you want, more than not letting gays marry is to have government control over the language. What are we, France (yes, they have a govenrnment board to decide what is and isn't proper French language)? I mean, if gays can call it marriage instead of a "Civil Union" then we'll start calling crackers bread and the whole country will break down. Mariage should be a contract like any other as far as the government is concerned. If the two people want to sign a contract saying they will share everything and have certain rights such as hospital visitation why is it the government's place to say who can have that contract or what we should call it?

And by the way, why is it that we give tax breaks to married people? "Oh, you're in love, how wonderful, clearly now you will be using fewer of the services of the government so please, have more money."

There is absolutely no need for the government to define a word for us. If we were to give gays equal rights as straights than we would be giving them what is essentially marriage, and it's not as if we wouldn't call it marriage. All civil unions create is segrigation. I ask you, what's wrong with giving blacks their own schools as long as they're just as good?


Gays aren't as good. No matter what race, language, or age they are, a gay is a gay and everyone's going to have to live with that.

And by the way, why is it that we give tax breaks to married people? "Oh, you're in love, how wonderful, clearly now you will be using fewer of the services of the government so please, have more money."


You are obviously not married, or do not pay taxes. Married people get screwed MORE on taxes.

mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle. (the bolding is mine)

Gays aren't as good. No matter what race, language, or age they are, a gay is a gay and everyone's going to have to live with that.
Okay, a gay is a gay.
I don't think anybody said that gays aren't gay...
So what's your point?

Its not a disease, noone thinks that, its just something you are born with.

But you have to think that there is something wrong with gay people. I mean, most of them are nice people and are pretty normal, you know, same intelligence as everyone else. But we are created to reproduce, so when you think about it. A man trying to impregnate another man and a women trying to impregnate another women is just kind of rediculous. So when you get right down to it, it is kind of messed up. Sort of like freaks of nature, but not really

But do you get what Im saying?


I get what you're saying, but all the children that see these people are going to think that they can have crushes on boys when they're boys themselves and vise versa for girls! It's inhumane! And it's still a choice one makes, they fall into pressure and think that it's something they were born with and it just uncovered itself.

But we are created to reproduce, so when you think about it. A man trying to impregnate another man and a women trying to impregnate another women is just kind of rediculous. So when you get right down to it, it is kind of messed up. Sort of like freaks of nature, but not really

But do you get what Im saying?
That would be wrong. We are not created to produce, we are created to pass on our genetic material. That doesn't always mean reproducing. It could mean simply caring for children in your family that are already born. If they survive than your genetic material is being propagated.

Not to be rude, but IT IS A CHOICE TO BE HOMO, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE A DISEASE! Therapists make EVERYONE think that EVERYTHING is a disease these days..... :sniper:


You're right its not a disease, but it is something your born with. Do you think its a coincidence that roughly 10% of every generation in both men and women is gay?

For arguement's sake lets say being gay is a choice, its still their business, you can't dictate to them how to live their single existence, they have a right to enjoy their life as they see fit (as long as no one is hurt, and no one is).

Or feather boas and lipstick.
hey, any heterosexual man who is secure in his sexuality can wear whatever he wants.

man, men need a liberation movement so they can lose the shackels of their traditional gender roles, i think.

Okay, a gay is a gay.
I don't think anybody said that gays aren't gay...
So what's your point?


Oops, sorry. I mean, ummm.... I forgot..... Oops....

I get what you're saying, but all the children that see these people are going to think that they can have crushes on boys when they're boys themselves and vise versa for girls! It's inhumane! And it's still a choice one makes, they fall into pressure and think that it's something they were born with and it just uncovered itself.
Heres a small bit of information you night have missed. If they're not gay, kids won't have crushes on someone of the same sex. By your logic, you could turn gay tommorow if you wanted to, the only thing holding you back in the fear of hell.

hey, any heterosexual man who is secure in his sexuality can wear whatever he wants.

man, men need a liberation movement so they can lose the shackels of their traditional gender roles, i think.
We can get Brian Molko to grow his hair out again and do his androgynous thing. He can be a figurehead for the movement!

(err, is there something wrong with me if I though he was hot like that? then again, me being transsexual and all, I've always admired a guy that can pass as a woman...)

You're right its not a disease, but it is something your born with. Do you think its a coincidence that roughly 10% of every generation in both men and women is gay?

For arguement's sake lets say being gay is a choice, its still their business, you can't dictate to them how to live their single existence, they have a right to enjoy their life as they see fit (as long as no one is hurt, and no one is).


Okay, let the gays die and go to hell because they're gay.

IBut you have to think that there is something wrong with gay people. I mean, most of them are nice people and are pretty normal, you know, same intelligence as everyone else. But we are created to reproduce, so when you think about it. A man trying to impregnate another man and a women trying to impregnate another women is just kind of rediculous. So when you get right down to it, it is kind of messed up. Sort of like freaks of nature, but not really.

Well clearly they're not exactly well suited in a Darwinian sense, but I really see little connection between that and their right to a contract.

Also, every time you have sex it's for the express purpose of reproduction? Should women not have sex after menopause, then?

Homos are sick if you ask me, who would want to lay another woman? I mean, if you're a woman in the first place. I think they should get jailed for a year. And I think the government should pry into marriges more-- to make sure no one is slipping up about things, like abuse, for one thing.

"Do not practice HOMOSEXUALITY, for it is a detestible sin" Leviticus 18:22
actually, isn't the quote a man shall not lie with another man the way he lies with a woman or some such? in which case, well, two men having sex won't be doing it the same way a man and a woman will be...

and who wouldn't want to have sex with a woman?

women have beautiful bodies, the curves are so perfect... probably why so many guys fantasize about threesomes and lesbian action. more uncovered, beautiful curves in one place.

I believe that homosexuality should be punished, but not by death, just by taking away some rights, not too many, and taxing them more.
That is more 'nice' :p .
but I would not let them go off and create too ig of a deal about it.
Heheheh. A gay tax. Heh.

hey, any heterosexual man who is secure in his sexuality can wear whatever he wants.

man, men need a liberation movement so they can lose the shackels of their traditional gender roles, i think.
What are you some kinda queer?

Sorry, but thats about the response something like that would get.

Two consenting adults can do whatever they want, I don't really care. However, homosexuality is abnormal behavior, and should not be taught in our schools that it is normal behavior.

Heres a small bit of information you night have missed. If they're not gay, kids won't have crushes on someone of the same sex. By your logic, you could turn gay tommorow if you wanted to, the only thing holding you back in the fear of hell.


Anyone could let themselves turn gay if they wanted to, but I'm not because I'm not getting married anyways. It IS my fear of hell that's keeping me on the straight side though. Otherwise I wouldn't care.

Heheheh. A gay tax. Heh.
I guess there are going to be some large tarriffs on KY jelly and hair care products.

Not to be rude, but IT IS A CHOICE TO BE HOMO, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE A DISEASE! Therapists make EVERYONE think that EVERYTHING is a disease these days..... :sniper:
nope not a choice. hate to break it to you.

one of my close friends has spent years trying to figure out his sexuality. he went off pretending to be straight for a while to please some of his friends who aren't terribly friendly to gay people... but he's come to the realization that he is gay. and i'm proud of him. not for being gay, but for figuring it out and being happy with who he is.

I guess there are going to be some large tarriffs on KY jelly and hair care products.
Not to mention loafer lightener...

actually, isn't the quote a man shall not lie with another man the way he lies with a woman or some such? in which case, well, two men having sex won't be doing it the same way a man and a woman will be...

and who wouldn't want to have sex with a woman?

women have beautiful bodies, the curves are so perfect... probably why so many guys fantasize about threesomes and lesbian action. more uncovered, beautiful curves in one place.

It probably is, but I have the NIV version, so don't blame me for that. And trust me, threesomes aren't as good as people think they are. Why else do you think I'm on the straight side? :eek:

I like how people use the meaning of a word to justify some kind of social policy. They don't realize that the meaning of words is dictated by their use. If we start calling same sex unions marriage then the word marriage comes to encompass that too. The word cool used to refer only to temperature and gay used to only mean happy. Its a living language, this happens all the time.

In fact same sex unions already fall under the dictionary version of marriage in the two I checked before replying originally (www.m-w.com and www.dictionary.com, if anyone cares).

Hence my original comment.

One thing though, I have one problem with gays, that is they ruined things for straights like sailor uniforms. Noone will be caught dead in those anymore. The gays wanted to play a little dress up and there it went. Same with some names like Butch.


have you not been deleted yet?

I get what you're saying, but all the children that see these people are going to think that they can have crushes on boys when they're boys themselves and vise versa for girls! It's inhumane! And it's still a choice one makes, they fall into pressure and think that it's something they were born with and it just uncovered itself.
Well, if being gay is so wrong, what would you propose to do about it?

Well, I don't believe in all the heaven and hell sillyness, but if you do, isn't that punishment enough? They are not hurting anyone but themselves in your approximation, right, so isn't the infernal torment of damnation enough? For a Christian you don't seem to love thy neighbor all that much.

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?


Wow. What a novel concept. That's exactly what they're trying to get. "Their own Union."

Which, by the way, is very much like marriage?

So...maybe we should call it something different. It's *like* marriage but its not.

Just like...black people should ride at the back of the bus.

Or maybe, women should be making dinner and the occasional baby.

You know what this is about? This is about fear of change. It's also about repression, the very thing that people have been fighting for centuries.

Personally? I don't think homosexual marriages affect anyone adversly. In fact, I think they do more good then harm because they allow two people who might want to get married a chance too. It also may restore their faith in humanity...that people might be seeing them as human beings again and allowing them to have their love even though its very different.

And before you go off on "Well then, maybe we should also let men love boys and understand that. Or maybe we should let murderers murder because they obviously like to do that."

This subject is very different from those two implications that you might make. The fact is, gay people fall in love with eachother just as straight people do and therefor should be able to celebrate and bond just as straight people do.

Who does it honestly hurt?

As long as no christian claims gays are born that way, this thread is fine by me. However, as soon as "Christian" says that, stuff is going to fly. Look in the scripture, it says clearly homosexuality is a sin, we choose. Quite frankly, every man in his life has asked himself, am I gay? The simple ans---BOOBS! Problem solved. If you dont go "am i----BOOBS!" then there is a problem and you need to go to an Austrian chapel to get yourself fixed. There is a good reason they are called faggots, I got a good laugh from reading about it.

nope not a choice. hate to break it to you.

one of my close friends has spent years trying to figure out his sexuality. he went off pretending to be straight for a while to please some of his friends who aren't terribly friendly to gay people... but he's come to the realization that he is gay. and i'm proud of him. not for being gay, but for figuring it out and being happy with who he is.


Then tell me what thing in a human's mind makes them Homo.

What are you some kinda queer?

Sorry, but thats about the response something like that would get.
so?

a guy in my classical mechanics (physics) class wears a pink shirt from time to time. one day a guy in my class commented on it and was like "what kind of guy wears that?" however, every single girl in the class was saying "well, if he wants to wear it, let him." seriously, women wear pants, which were traditionally men's clothing... why can't men wear clothes that are traditionally women's clothes? fear or reprisal from other men? please.

like i said, any man who is secure enough in his sexuality to wear pink or a skirt (you should really try wearing a skirt, they give a very libereated feeling, well a mini skirt anyways) or hell, try his turn in some heels and a boa is alright in my books.

Anyone could let themselves turn gay if they wanted to, but I'm not because I'm not getting married anyways. It IS my fear of hell that's keeping me on the straight side though. Otherwise I wouldn't care.
Oooh someone sounds like they have issues. Bet its pretty dark in that closet huh?
Quick bit of advice: repression and denial of your natural sexual urges is going to end badly. If the only thing keeping you from expressing an attration to the same sex is fear, I don't think its going to last.

Well, if being gay is so wrong, what would you propose to do about it?


STOP IT! ILLEGALIZE IT! DO SOMETHING WITH IT!

Oooh someone sounds like they have issues. Bet its pretty dark in that closet huh?
Quick bit of advice: repression and denial of your natural sexual urges is going to end badly. If the only thing keeping you from expressing an attration to the same sex is fear, I don't think its going to last.


Ooh, someone's a therapist! And there's a nightlight on in my room so I can see the outline of the floor! HA! Not so dark now, is it? :)

Then tell me what thing in a human's mind makes them Homo.
if i remember correctly, it's the size of the hypocampus.

straight males have larger hypocampuses, gay males will have slightly smaller hypocampuses, lesbians will have about the same size or bigger and straight women will have small hypocampuses.

in transexuals, those who get the feeling of being men in women's bodies will have hypocampuses the same size of men though chromosomally, they are women and vice versa.

there is also a possible environmental component, but that's mostly related to hormones received in utero.

Anyone could let themselves turn gay if they wanted to, but I'm not because I'm not getting married anyways. It IS my fear of hell that's keeping me on the straight side though. Otherwise I wouldn't care.


Its your biology keeping you on the straight side, you couldn't turn gay even if your accension to paradise depended on it. Sure you could have gay sex, but it would be forced and thats not being gay. Being gay is loving the same sex, and how can you force yourself to truly love something, or on the other hand force yourself away from something you truly love?

Anyone could let themselves turn gay if they wanted to, but I'm not because I'm not getting married anyways. It IS my fear of hell that's keeping me on the straight side though. Otherwise I wouldn't care.

I think that settles it, you're gay. Any straight man will tell you he could not become gay. He may be able to force himself to have sex with another man, but to actually want to is a different story. I don't believe in hell, I couldn't be gay, no matter how hard I tried I couldn't. It's kinda sad that you have such hate for yourself that you can't admit your gay.

so?

a guy in my classical mechanics (physics) class wears a pink shirt from time to time. one day a guy in my class commented on it and was like "what kind of guy wears that?" however, every single girl in the class was saying "well, if he wants to wear it, let him." seriously, women wear pants, which were traditionally men's clothing... why can't men wear clothes that are traditionally women's clothes? fear or reprisal from other men? please.

like i said, any man who is secure enough in his sexuality to wear pink or a skirt (you should really try wearing a skirt, they give a very libereated feeling, well a mini skirt anyways) or hell, try his turn in some heels and a boa is alright in my books.
Pink shirt isn't a big deal. That kind of thing made its way over from the punk to preppy style recently, I see them pretty often.

I like how people use the meaning of a word to justify some kind of social policy. They don't realize that the meaning of words is dictated by their use. If we start calling same sex unions marriage then the word marriage comes to encompass that too. The word cool used to refer only to temperature and gay used to only mean happy. Its a living language, this happens all the time.
*applauds*

And why do people opposed to homosexuality have an obsession with the sexual side of things? They're always going on about anal sex etc. For example, I was watching a doco last night about the Christian right and there was this guy ranting on and on about how homosexual men "aren't gay, they're sodomites, SODOMITES."

Some kind of repression maybe? :p

As long as no christian claims gays are born that way, this thread is fine by me. However, as soon as "Christian" says that, stuff is going to fly. Look in the scripture, it says clearly homosexuality is a sin, we choose. Quite frankly, every man in his life has asked himself, am I gay? The simple ans---BOOBS! Problem solved. If you dont go "am i----BOOBS!" then there is a problem and you need to go to an Austrian chapel to get yourself fixed. There is a good reason they are called faggots, I got a good laugh from reading about it.
not every man has asked himself that. some men [b[are[/b] only interested in women. some men are slightly interested in other men but largely interested in women, some men are equally interested in both... and some men are exclusively interested in other men.

I think that settles it, you're gay. Any straight man will tell you he could not become gay. He may be able to force himself to have sex with another man, but to actually want to is a different story. I don't believe in hell, I couldn't be gay, no matter how hard I tried I couldn't. It's kinda sad that you have such hate for yourself that you can't admit your gay.

I didn't say I was gay, I just said that I wouldn't care if I didn't fear hell

I guess there are going to be some large tarriffs on KY jelly and hair care products.
Hey, I know from an unnamed source that KY jelly has other uses.

Ooh, someone's a therapist! And there's a nightlight on in my room so I can see the outline of the floor! HA! Not so dark now, is it? :)
Its doesn't take a therapist for this case. If you said the fear of hell is the only thing keeping you from turning gay, that implies you are attracted to people of the same sex but a religious belief keeps you from acting on it. Guess what, thats gay.

Pink shirt isn't a big deal. That kind of thing made its way over from the punk to preppy style recently, I see them pretty often.


Besides, pink has BEEN the boy color in my town for years!

OK now its rant time:

I consider myself a moderate, but this is one issue I am liberal on...

I get scared when people refer to "gays" as if they were not people, lets not forget that this was the same mindset that allowed for the enslavement and opression of an entire race of people for almost 300 years...something that is clearly not acceptable today.

Also, if you actually follow the constitution, banning it, or treating it any different from regular marriage, is illegal. Technically the government must grant any couple a civil union (non-religious, but for all intents and perposes, marriage) althought clearly this is not the case.

The catholic church, the bible, or any other religeous organization for that matter, have no juristiction in this mattter, yet the ultra-conservatives continue to force their beliefs on everyone else. (A.K.A. Rick Santorum - Scumbag PA senator)

Just my 2 cents...

Oh my dear GOD! Why is it that anyone opposed to anything even remotely gay, every liberal in the world jumps on it and says "YOU MUST BE GAY!" It's old, it's worn, and it is just flat out idiotic.

Just for further reference

Homo*phobia
Homo = Same
Phobia = Fear
Homophobia = Same fear
A.K.A. Same-sex fear. Most do not fear gays, they hate them. Hatred does not spawn from the fear of something, but inner anger that roots and grows. Fear can become hate, but only in extreme cases spread through many years, such as fear of terrorists taking years to become hatred of terrorists. However, anger from say, a gay man beating, hitting on, or raping a child can very quickly become hatred of gays.

Pink shirt isn't a big deal. That kind of thing made its way over from the punk to preppy style recently, I see them pretty often.
but people still reacted to it.

do people react when a girl walks around in a flannel shirt and jeans? i'm sure they used to... but since women's liberation, it's become commonplace for women to wear pants or really, whatever they damn well please.

yet men are still afraid, still stuck in their traditional fashions and afraid to be called a queer if caught in anything but. however if someone's secure in their sexuality, then being called a name won't phase them. same way if you know you're not fat and someone calls you a lardo, you're not going to get upset, but if you have the slightest insecurity that you may be fat, you're going to get upset...

Its doesn't take a therapist for this case. If you said the fear of hell is the only thing keeping you from turning gay, that implies you are attracted to people of the same sex but a religious belief keeps you from acting on it. Guess what, thats gay.


Read what I just put in the last thing I wrote to you. I already said I don't like men or women, and dont even try to tell me i mastubrate! :)

yet men are still afraid, still stuck in their traditional fashions and afraid to be called a queer if caught in anything but. however if someone's secure in their sexuality, then being called a name won't phase them. same way if you know you're not fat and someone calls you a lardo, you're not going to get upset, but if you have the slightest insecurity that you may be fat, you're going to get upset...
Yeah, I think guys do tend to be a bit more insecure in their sexuality than women. This is why my boyfriend used to enjoy going out in pigtails. :p

Nevertheless, a girl who's judged as too 'butch' will probably cop a label or something.

However, anger from say, a gay man beating, hitting on, or raping a child can very quickly become hatred of gays.
actually, usually it's a straight man who will rape a child. male or female.

Yes, it does say being gay is a sin, but it also even more clearly states that women must go to a hut when they are menstruating, men may not touch women who are not their wives or pre-pubecent daughters, men may not have long hair (Jesus seemed to dislike this rule), that you must cover your hair at all times, that you must not shave your beard, and you absolutely must never eat pork, shell fish, scavengers, insects (except a certain kind of locust), or any cloved hooved animal. Plus, you must make yearly sacrifices at the temple in Israel. I don't think many Christians abide by the old rules. Please, Christians, read Leviticus yourselves, it will put that one line in perspective.

I would like to mention, first, I'm a Libertarian, thank you very much. Second, homophobics have been showed to have a much higher sexual arousal than other straight men when shown gay porn. Third, I said it because he admited to being gay. If you would be with the same sex except for some outside force you are gay.

Yeah, I think guys do tend to be a bit more insecure in their sexuality than women. This is why my boyfriend used to enjoy going out in pigtails. :p

Nevertheless, a girl who's judged as too 'butch' will probably cop a label or something.
then perhaps women's lib needs to go further...

but at least we can wear pants. men can only wear skirts if they're scottish pretty much...

but people still reacted to it.

do people react when a girl walks around in a flannel shirt and jeans? i'm sure they used to... but since women's liberation, it's become commonplace for women to wear pants or really, whatever they damn well please.

yet men are still afraid, still stuck in their traditional fashions and afraid to be called a queer if caught in anything but. however if someone's secure in their sexuality, then being called a name won't phase them. same way if you know you're not fat and someone calls you a lardo, you're not going to get upset, but if you have the slightest insecurity that you may be fat, you're going to get upset...

I think I might have the answer to that.

It's been proven that most girls are either anorexic or bullimic. or however you spell it. Anyway, fashion designers are always making dresses smaller and smaller, as well as other clothes. Most men can't get INTO girl's clothes to feel comfertable.

Yes, it does say being gay is a sin, but it also even more clearly states that women must go to a hut when they are menstruating, men may not touch women who are not their wives or pre-pubecent daughters, men may not have long hair (Jesus seemed to dislike this rule), that you must cover your hair at all times, that you must not shave your beard, and you absolutely must never eat pork, shell fish, scavengers, insects (except a certain kind of locust), or any cloved hooved animal. Plus, you must make yearly sacrifices at the temple in Israel. I don't think many Christians abide by the old rules. Please, Christians, read Leviticus yourselves, it will put that one line in perspective.


Jews follow the Old Testimate. Christians follow the New Testimate, where the laws are restated to better fit life with Christ.

I think I might have the answer to that.

It's been proven that most girls are either anorexic or bullimic. or however you spell it. Anyway, fashion designers are always making dresses smaller and smaller, as well as other clothes. Most men can't get INTO girl's clothes to feel comfertable.
really?

then explain how my boyfriend fit into my skirt so well? (we were in his garage and i was cold so he let me borrow his pants)

women's clothes come in all sizes, and the sizes are actually getting bigger to make women feel better about themselves. (if you're a size 2 in one store and a size 6 in another, you'll shop in the store that gives you a lower size)

furthermore, most women aren't anorexic or bullemic. either pull up some stats or stop pulling "facts" out of your ass.

Maybe decent minded people who do not hate or fear gay people need to look away from the the symptom (idiot biggots, and brainwashed followers) and look closer at the disease (organized religion) that spawns such predjucice. Religious people are not inherantly intollerant, but it seems that a disproporionate ammount of hate comes from that area. What ever happened to love thy neighbor as you love thyself?

[QUTE]then perhaps women's lib needs to go further...

but at least we can wear pants. men can only wear skirts if they're scottish pretty much...[/QUOTE]

Women's and men's lib both. :p Pacific Islander and South Indian men wear sarongs. (y)


It's been proven that most girls are either anorexic or bullimic. or however you spell it.
Dude, keep pulling your 'facts' out of there...

And boys could fit into girls clothes if they tried... I've seen several boys wear women's clothes. Besides, where do you think drag queens get their wardrobes?

I was throwing out possibilities. Don't even try to tell me gays dont do it. Where I live, it seems to be their pass-time.

really?

then explain how my boyfriend fit into my skirt so well? (we were in his garage and i was cold so he let me borrow his pants)

women's clothes come in all sizes, and the sizes are actually getting bigger to make women feel better about themselves. (if you're a size 2 in one store and a size 6 in another, you'll shop in the store that gives you a lower size)

furthermore, most women aren't anorexic or bullemic. either pull up some stats or stop pulling "facts" out of your ass.


They're not from my ass, they're coming from my mouth, or out of my fingers, and onto the keyboard, technology these days.....

I love how these threads attract the screwballs.

[QUTE]then perhaps women's lib needs to go further...

but at least we can wear pants. men can only wear skirts if they're scottish pretty much...

Women's and men's lib both. :p Pacific Islander and South Indian men wear sarongs. (y)


Dude, keep pulling your 'facts' out of there...

And boys could fit into girls clothes if they tried... I've seen several boys wear women's clothes. Besides, where do you think drag queens get their wardrobes?[/QUOTE]


Well, which would you prefer, the facts, or my opinion?

HELLLOOOOOO...!!!!!


There seems to be 1 MAJOR point that people are missing....

THE BIBLE IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION, NEVER WAS, OR NEVER WILL BE! :headbang:

Jews follow the Old Testimate. Christians follow the New Testimate, where the laws are restated to better fit life with Christ.

I realize, and St. Paul said that the Old Testimate laws did not need to be followed anymore, but I was just making the point that quoting what is sinful from Leviticus is simply silly when you don't abide by all but a few of the other rules.

I love how these threads attract the screwballs.

Screwballs who can type a lot

Screwballs who can type a lot

All in good fun

Oh my dear GOD! Why is it that anyone opposed to anything even remotely gay, every liberal in the world jumps on it and says "YOU MUST BE GAY!" It's old, it's worn, and it is just flat out idiotic.
Because there have been a whole lot of cases where some of the most vocal opponents of homosexuality have turned out to be gay themselves.

Examples:
Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee - Founders of Exodus International
John Paulk - Leader of Exodus International
Michael Johnston - Ex gay spokeperson for Jerry Falwell

Thats just the few I remebered, that are a lot more than that. Hell even one or two of Fred Phelp's sons have come out, after leaving the family of course.

Screwballs who can type a lot

I would like to point out that using the term "screwballs" in a thread about gays makes for hilarity.

Well, which would you prefer, the facts, or my opinion?
well, when you make statements like "it's a fact that most women are anorexic or bullemic" then i would prefer an actual fact, rather than opinion.

All in good fun


Of course.

Now, I have to shower, so you people who like gays are free of me for about ten minutes, but beware.... *maniacle laugh, then coughing fit* Oops.... bibi now

I would like to point out that using the term "screwballs" in a thread about gays makes for hilarity.


Before I leave I would like to point out that the word :screwballs" means everyone that's been in this thread, as in good for fun, NOT insulting people.

I would also like to point out that men are the ones who most benefit from the wearing of skirts or kilts due to our dangly bits.

Also, you said "screwballs" again. Hehehehe.

* Anorexia nervosa

Research suggests that about one percent (1%) of female adolescents have anorexia. That means that about one out of every one hundred young women between ten and twenty are starving themselves, sometimes to death. There do not seem to be reliable figures for younger children and older adults, but such cases, while they do occur, are not common.

* Bulimia nervosa

Research suggests that about four percent (4%), or four out of one hundred, college-aged women have bulimia. About 50% of people who have been anorexic develop bulimia or bulimic patterns. Because people with bulimia are secretive, it is difficult to know how many older people are affected. Bulimia is rare in children.

http://www.anred.com/stats.html

4% of all women are bullemic.
1% of all women are anorexic.

this is 5% of all women with eating disorders. i would hardly call that "most"

GAY :mp5:

Ok.... time for a govermment 101 lesson....


The constitution is supposed to be ALL ENCOMPASING, holding higher athourity than ANY RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT.... thats what SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE means...!

If there are religious doctrines that conflict w/ the constitution, the constitution overrides....

For example.... Rastafarianism dictates the smoking of ganja, which is illegal in U.S. law... anyone wanna guess whether or not rastafarians are legally allowed to smoke it...? (Hint...no)

Of course, if there are religious doctrines that don't conflict with U.S. law, the followers of that doctrine are free to do whatever it may be, but everyone else can do whatever they want.

Kilts are manly and have been used by the Celts for centuries, don't compare them with skirts laddie

Kilts are manly and have been used by the Celts for centuries, don't compare them with skirts laddie
lassie*

and they're the closest thing to skirts (well, i suppose other than the aforementione pacific islanders wearing sarongs) that it is considered socially acceptable for men to wear.

i say show off your legs, men! feel the freedom of the skirt. and just think, if you have a girl with a skirt, it makes for even easier access. ;)

Kilts are manly and have been used by the Celts for centuries, don't compare them with skirts laddie

My point was that they provide the same benefit. Kilts are for men, though, which is why I have one.

I can think of no logical reason against gay marriage. If, indeed, anyone who is gay is going to hell (which I don't believe), then surely an eternity in hell is suitable punishment? If not, then it doesn't matter anyway.

w00! Men's Lib. So I can wear a nice, cool kilt, ala the eypgtians.Learn from History!

In the late 1700s some people wanted democratic rule. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that the king ruled by God's will.

In the mid 1800s some people wanted to end slavery. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God approved of slavery.

In the early 1900s some people wanted to give women the vote. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God made women inferior to men.

In the mid 1900s some people wanted to end segregation. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved God wanted to keep the races separate.

When you look back at how your parents and grandparents dealt with these things, are you ashamed or proud?

Now some people want to allow gay marriage. Conservative elements of the church are pointing to the Bible and saying it proves God hates homosexuality.

When your children and grandchildren look back at how you deal with this, will they be ashamed or proud?
Based on past behavior, even if you are right... we have to disregard your opinion.
And as many have said:

How is it your business?

If they are going to hell, isn't that enough?

It will help the economy.

Most homophobes are still in the closet. If you want people to think that you are straight, stop whining.

GAY :mp5:
Please do not post unless you have something useful to add to the discussion.

Homos are sick if you ask me, who would want to lay another woman? I mean, if you're a woman in the first place. I think they should get jailed for a year. And I think the government should pry into marriges more-- to make sure no one is slipping up about things, like abuse, for one thing.

"Do not practice HOMOSEXUALITY, for it is a detestible sin" Leviticus 18:22
Since you want to take a stab at religious text, try this in regards to homosexuality:

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you"

This is said. . .a thread about gay marriage and I have nothing to say. Thanks everyone for doing such a good job with the lamos.

*grumbles*

Is it just me or do I smell intolerance?

Really! Why shouldn't gays have the right to marry?

Because some out of date illogical mass of contradictions says they can't?
Because 'it just aint natural'?
Because 'I said so'?

Anyone else see a pattern here?

None of those arguments holds any water.
A. Your beleifs are not someone elses... (In simple terms that means: Don't tell others how to live their lives... Its none of your business.)
B. What's natural or unnatural isn't important. I think opressing minorities out of fear is unnatural, but you clearly dissagree.

:fluffle: KSP :fluffle:

Since you want to take a stab at religious text, try this in regards to homosexuality:

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you"

*snicker*

If they are persecuting you because you are doing something wrong, then your arguement holds no water and it doesn't apply... The Church's stance is that it is ok to be oriented a different way, but not OK to act upon these "urges" for two reasons.

1. It just is not "natural" with all the mechanics.
2. The CHurch only wants procreative sex.

1. It just is not "natural" with all the mechanics.


Then how come anal penetration is the only way to stimulate the prostate--the male G spot.


2. The CHurch only wants procreative sex.

Guess we'd better stop those infertile people from marrying. Oh and those menopausal women. And people who had mumps. And people who don't want kids.

Because you know, the church decides who can and cannot marry in a secular society.

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?
who says so? who defines marrige

I don't mind if the government/businesses give gay couples the same financial benefits as married couples. But marriage cannot, and should not ever include gay couples. For thousands of years globally, in society and religion (and by genetic design) human marriage is for one woman and one man (apart from the few sects/minor groups who allow polygamy)

They can invent a new union if they want, just don't warp and crap all over a great old one.

I don't mind if the government/businesses give gay couples the same financial benefits as married couples. But marriage cannot, and should not ever include gay couples. For thousands of years globally, in society and religion (and by genetic design) human marriage is for one woman and one man (apart from the few sects/minor groups who allow polygamy)

They can invent a new union if they want, just don't warp and crap all over a great old one.


Ever hear that separate is not equal? Churches are free to say gay people are not married. The government is not. Fortunantely this is not a problem as churches aren't regulated by the government and the government is not supposed to be controlled by churches.

And what of the cultures (Native American) that did allow gay marriage? Kind of pokes holes in your "All over the world for all time" theory don't it?

I don't mind if the government/businesses give gay couples the same financial benefits as married couples. But marriage cannot, and should not ever include gay couples. For thousands of years globally, in society and religion (and by genetic design) human marriage is for one woman and one man (apart from the few sects/minor groups who allow polygamy)

They can invent a new union if they want, just don't warp and crap all over a great old one.
and which religion has control over what marrige is or is not ? what if I made a religion that allows gay marrige

That would be wrong. We are not created to produce, we are created to pass on our genetic material.
That statement is still far too fateful for my tastes. We are not created to produce, and we are not created to pass on our genetic material. We are created because someone else wanted to pass on their genetic material. What you do with it is up to you.
Okay, let the gays die and go to hell because they're gay.
Heh, just so long as you leave us alone in this life you can predict whatever you want for the next one. :fluffle: :fluffle:

Ever hear that separate is not equal? Churches are free to say gay people are not married. The government is not. Fortunantely this is not a problem as churches aren't regulated by the government and the government is not supposed to be controlled by churches.

And what of the cultures (Native American) that did allow gay marriage? Kind of pokes holes in your "All over the world for all time" theory don't it?


Actually it's governments that largely define marriage. Whenever we sign up for something (buying goods/services etc), businesses hand out forms with a few options Single, De Facto, Married, Widowed, Divorced. These are used to record data, which may have to be reported to the government for taxation or legal issues.

Some church groups and religions don't allow for divorce, but governments do, hence they seem to have more influence here over society and the law. People belonging to these religions or denominations can't use the legal system to sue someone trying to divorce them for someone else with adultery and polygamy, because the governement allows it.

Marriage is a separate, important, almost sacred celebration of partnership of man and woman.

Gay's can invent their own if they want, call it Garriage or something. Of course this doesn't mean religions and governments will support this. But I don't see anything wrong if governments want to grant some gay couples financial (tax etc) benefits that married couples get

Actually it's governments that largely define marriage. Whenever we sign up for something (buying goods/services etc), businesses hand out forms with a few options Single, De Facto, Married, Widowed, Divorced. These are used to record data, which may have to be reported to the government for taxation or legal issues.

Some church groups and religions don't allow for divorce, but governments do, hence they seem to have more influence here over society and the law. People belonging to these religions or denominations can't use the legal system to sue someone trying to divorce them for someone else with adultery and polygamy, because the governement allows it.

Marriage is a separate, important, almost sacred celebration of partnership of man and woman.

Gay's can invent their own if they want, call it Garriage or something. Of course this doesn't mean religions and governments will support this. But I don't see anything wrong if governments want to grant some gay couples financial (tax etc) benefits that married couples get


While I am for the seperation of legal and religious unions

if I get a religion that conciders gay marrige alright and marries me that would be fine by your logic (because that religion would define marrige as between man and woman or man and man woman and woman)
Why does your religion get to set the deffinition?

While I am for the seperation of legal and religious unions

if I get a religion that conciders gay marrige alright and marries me that would be fine by your logic (because that religion would define marrige as between man and woman or man and man woman and woman)
Why does your religion get to set the deffinition?

Where in my quoted section of text did I say:

MY RELIGION PWNZ THE WORLD AND GETS TO DEFINE MARRIAGE

Get back to me when you find that line.

This is just a random, open debate that AT MOST affects 10% of the planet (probably likely to be 0.01% because I think this debate is being limited to the current debacle over the issue in the USA)

What I said, is that I think/believe that marriage should be for a woman and a man, full stop. As it has been all over the world in a majority of societies and religions for 10,000 years+

Where in my quoted section of text did I say:

MY RELIGION PWNZ THE WORLD AND GETS TO DEFINE MARRIAGE

Get back to me when you find that line.

This is just a random, open debate that AT MOST affects 10% of the planet (probably likely to be 0.01% because I think this debate is being limited to the current debacle over the issue in the USA)

What I said, is that I think/believe that marriage should be for a woman and a man, full stop. As it has been all over the world in a majority of societies and religions for 10,000 years+
So if you do not have religious backing what is the issue with the deffinition (btw my deffinition is two people who love eachother)

And being the majority makes it right?

So if you do not have religious backing what is the issue with the deffinition (btw my deffinition is two people who love eachother)


Marriage is derived from a religious ceremony (hence was technically "invented" by "religion"). One which has continued (as I said) for many thousands of years

And being the majority makes it right?

Absolutely. Tell me a time when this hasn't been the case

Actually it's governments that largely define marriage. Whenever we sign up for something (buying goods/services etc), businesses hand out forms with a few options Single, De Facto, Married, Widowed, Divorced. These are used to record data, which may have to be reported to the government for taxation or legal issues.

The reason government gets to define marriage is because the government is the one giving rights to married couples. The government cannot discriminate and give those rights to one group and not another. This in no way violates Freedom of Religion (but NOT letting gays marry certainly does since some religious groups ALLOW gay marriage).

Religious organizations may or may not give rights associated with marriage to their members. That's fine. They can view a couple married or not however they want. The can refuse to acknowledge a divorce and send someone to hell. That's their perogative. They cannot however dictate what the government cannot do.


Some church groups and religions don't allow for divorce, but governments do, hence they seem to have more influence here over society and the law. People belonging to these religions or denominations can't use the legal system to sue someone trying to divorce them for someone else with adultery and polygamy, because the governement allows it.

Could they perhaps more influence over the law because they make and enforce the law?!! SHOCKING! Why can't religious people use the government to inforce their rules?!? Because there is a separation of church and state! GASP! The government can't force religious groups to change their ways and churches cannot force the government to make laws solely because they are what that sect believes.


Marriage is a separate, important, almost sacred celebration of partnership of man and woman.

In the terms of religious groups, sure. But as far as the government is concerned, its a legally binding contract that grants rights to couples electing to spend their lives together. Are you incapable of separating the two? Surely you are older than ten and should be passed the concrete operational stage of your development. Your vocabulary at least testifies to this possibility.


Gay's can invent their own if they want, call it Garriage or something. Of course this doesn't mean religions and governments will support this. But I don't see anything wrong if governments want to grant some gay couples financial (tax etc) benefits that married couples get

Why does it have to be a different name? That's like saying that blacks can have restaurants--as long as they are separate from us white peoples. I am fine with the Southern Baptists and the Most Unholy Church of the Vile and Satanic Fred Phelps saying I'm not married and I'm gonna burn. That's fine. But I do have a problem with the government that I support with my taxes and with the country that I love that is supposed to protect all people equally and treat everyone fairly saying that I am a second class citizen and don't deserve the same rights--and as importantly the SAME TITLES as everyone else.

Separate is NOT equal. Government marriage is NOT religious marriage.

While I am for the seperation of legal and religious unions

if I get a religion that conciders gay marrige alright and marries me that would be fine by your logic (because that religion would define marrige as between man and woman or man and man woman and woman)
Why does your religion get to set the deffinition?

And if the government refuses to recognize that marriage, isn't that a violation of second amendment?

Where in my quoted section of text did I say:

MY RELIGION PWNZ THE WORLD AND GETS TO DEFINE MARRIAGE

Get back to me when you find that line.

This is just a random, open debate that AT MOST affects 10% of the planet (probably likely to be 0.01% because I think this debate is being limited to the current debacle over the issue in the USA)

What I said, is that I think/believe that marriage should be for a woman and a man, full stop. As it has been all over the world in a majority of societies and religions for 10,000 years+

And then you proceeded to say that gay people should not get married STOP Further you said we should create our own system of unions STOP You think that we do not deserve to share in one of the most important rituals in this world STOP And you think all because of your own religious world view that you think you hav ea right to force off on others STOP If someone were trying to force YOU to LIVE by their religious view you would be offended and scream freedom of religioun STOP However, you think its okay to force others to LIVE by YOUR view STOP

Marriage is derived from a religious ceremony (hence was technically "invented" by "religion"). One which has continued (as I said) for many thousands of years



Absolutely. Tell me a time when this hasn't been the case
Plenty of times being majority does not make it RIGHT it makes it possible to be carried through there is a difference


And which religion invented marrige?

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?

Dude... Whatever :mp5:

Thanks for the random, unneccessary and immature reply, Mr. You must be younger than 10.

I was pointing out that many people believe (as I do) that marriage is for a man and a woman. This hasn't stopped many gay couples performing their own marriage ceremonies

The difference however is that the government doesn't acknowledge them. I don't mind that gays want to be acknowleged as being a couple and have the same benefits as married couples. But the problem arises when many people believe marriage is only for a woman and a man.

This is why the only alternative I see is separate, though equally acceptable (legally I mean) ceremony/category of some kind

Marriage is derived from a religious ceremony (hence was technically "invented" by "religion"). One which has continued (as I said) for many thousands of years

Marriage was secular long before it was religious. It had to do with forming alliances and joining properties--hell it had to do with that even AFTER the church took over it. And so what if that's it? Are we content to remain with the status quo? Are we to stick with discriminatory practices because they are tradition? If we did just think of what the world would be like:

-Democracy wouldn't exist
-Blacks would still sit on the back of the bus
-Husbands could beat their wives because they wouldn't be people but property
-A woman could be forced into a marriage with someone she's never met and certainly doesn't love
-Woman could not vote
-Children would be sent to fight Crusades
-Practicing religions other than Christianity could get you killed or tortured.
-We wouldn't have modern medicine, instead we would just pray about it.

Are you getting my point? We have to be willing to grow an change as a race--or we are going to end up killing ourselves. It probably won't be over the gay rights issue, but it will be over something else. Those who cannot change cannot live. Blind adherence to tradition does not support change.


Absolutely. Tell me a time when this hasn't been the case

For most of human history. You know, back when "Nobles" held all the power and the masses were downtrodden. Don't you think we should go back to that since its how things were for most of history?

All of em. And btw, because Anglicanism allows gay marrige, can we all just go home? Christianity accepts Gay marrige. :fluffle::fluffle:

Thanks for the random, unneccessary and immature reply, Mr. You must be younger than 10.

I was pointing out that many people believe (as I do) that marriage is for a man and a woman. This hasn't stopped many gay couples performing their own marriage ceremonies

The difference however is that the government doesn't acknowledge them. I don't mind that gays want to be acknowleged as being a couple and have the same benefits as married couples. But the problem arises when many people believe marriage is only for a woman and a man.

This is why the only alternative I see is separate, though equally acceptable (legally I mean) ceremony/category of some kind


Hey, I was just making an observation. Sorry if that offends you.

And frankly, I don't give a damn if the majority of people are against gays getting married. The majority of people in Mississippi were against blacks being treated as equals. That doesn't make it right or acceptable state of affairs.

If America wants to be the land of the free (which its not anymore) then it has to be free to everyone.

Thanks for the random, unneccessary and immature reply, Mr. You must be younger than 10.

I was pointing out that many people believe (as I do) that marriage is for a man and a woman. This hasn't stopped many gay couples performing their own marriage ceremonies

The difference however is that the government doesn't acknowledge them. I don't mind that gays want to be acknowleged as being a couple and have the same benefits as married couples. But the problem arises when many people believe marriage is only for a woman and a man.

This is why the only alternative I see is separate, though equally acceptable (legally I mean) ceremony/category of some kind
many people believed a lot of things that turned out to not be correct
how does their having the same union effect your union?

how does their having the same union effect your union?

OH! OH! I know that one!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

IT DOESN"T!

And then you proceeded to say that gay people should not get married STOP Further you said we should create our own system of unions STOP You think that we do not deserve to share in one of the most important rituals in this world STOP And you think all because of your own religious world view that you think you hav ea right to force off on others STOP If someone were trying to force YOU to LIVE by their religious view you would be offended and scream freedom of religioun STOP However, you think its okay to force others to LIVE by YOUR view STOP

Are you one of those rent-a-crowd college/uni students who always show up at random protests and riots for no reason?

Damn, I feel like I'm on an internet version of "Just Kidding"/"Candid Camera"

I said full stop to emphasise what I was trying to say, without you or others taking it the wrong way or warping what I was saying (or what I was trying to say)

However it seems to have been a futile gesture to spoon feed my sub-section of a much larger debate to the people with a room-temperature IQ who appear to plague enormous areas of the internet

OH! OH! I know that one!!!!

.
.

.

.

IT DOESN"T!
I always like the "it will deminish ours" arguement ... like for some reason because two men get married all of the sudden you love you wife less

http://www.jhuger.com/index.mv

Need I say more? Its right at the top.

Are you one of those rent-a-crowd college/uni students who always show up at random protests and riots for no reason?

Damn, I feel like I'm on an internet version of "Just Kidding"/"Candid Camera"

I said full stop to emphasise what I was trying to say, without you or others taking it the wrong way or warping what I was saying (or what I was trying to say)

However it seems to have been a futile gesture to spoon feed my sub-section of a much larger debate to the people with a room-temperature IQ who appear to plague enormous areas of the internet
Awww is someone getting upset and starting to resort to personal insults rather then concentrating on the statement
:fluffle:

Are you one of those rent-a-crowd college/uni students who always show up at random protests and riots for no reason?

Damn, I feel like I'm on an internet version of "Just Kidding"/"Candid Camera"

I said full stop to emphasise what I was trying to say, without you or others taking it the wrong way or warping what I was saying (or what I was trying to say)

However it seems to have been a futile gesture to spoon feed my sub-section of a much larger debate to the people with a room-temperature IQ who appear to plague enormous areas of the internet


Actually I'm just a gay guy on a Crusade. My apologies if I did indeed take you wrong. Its one of the inherant problems of speaking online.

But just to clarify--you came across as saying that separate IS equal and that because the majority of Christians feel icky about gay marriage, then the government shouldn't allow.

My apologies if that isn't what you meant. I do know I'm over-zealous at times--mainly because most people on what I thought to be your side of the specturm aren't that intelligent.

There's also the fact that I'm frustrated with a welther of exams (no, I'm not in Uni--I'm in med school which is a graduate program here) and this is often a good way to take out some frustrations.

Again, my apologies if I really misunderstood what you said.

many people believed a lot of things that turned out to not be correct
how does their having the same union effect your union?

History and hindsight are beautiful things. In this case (and in many other similar debates which have raged within society over the ages) there is no destinct CORRECT or incorrect.

As for effecting the "union" that too is debatable, some people (again, not necessarily me, don't forget we're encompassing billions of people when we throw forth sweeping comments and statements)

Might be insulted, made unhappy about such a decision. Pick up any text which forms the backbone of a major world religion, as far as I am aware, none specifically say gay relationships can be cemented by marriage ceremonies. But I don't think any specifically condone them either

It all depends on the individual people/couples you talk to however

History and hindsight are beautiful things. In this case (and in many other similar debates which have raged within society over the ages) there is no destinct CORRECT or incorrect.

As for effecting the "union" that too is debatable, some people (again, not necessarily me, don't forget we're encompassing billions of people when we throw forth sweeping comments and statements)

Might be insulted, made unhappy about such a decision. Pick up any text which forms the backbone of a major world religion, as far as I am aware, none specifically say gay relationships can be cemented by marriage ceremonies. But I don't think any specifically condone them either

It all depends on the individual people/couples you talk to however

So you are saying that because someone else has a problem with it, the government has the right to treat me differently?

Hell, I have a problem with people having more money than me. Let's take all of Bill Gates rights to the cash he's made and spread the wealth around a little.

History and hindsight are beautiful things. In this case (and in many other similar debates which have raged within society over the ages) there is no destinct CORRECT or incorrect.

As for effecting the "union" that too is debatable, some people (again, not necessarily me, don't forget we're encompassing billions of people when we throw forth sweeping comments and statements)

Might be insulted, made unhappy about such a decision. Pick up any text which forms the backbone of a major world religion, as far as I am aware, none specifically say gay relationships can be cemented by marriage ceremonies. But I don't think any specifically condone them either

It all depends on the individual people/couples you talk to however
None as far as I have come across have specifically disallowed it either

Actually I'm just a gay guy on a Crusade. My apologies if I did indeed take you wrong. Its one of the inherant problems of speaking online.

But just to clarify--you came across as saying that separate IS equal and that because the majority of Christians feel icky about gay marriage, then the government shouldn't allow.

My apologies if that isn't what you meant. I do know I'm over-zealous at times--mainly because most people on what I thought to be your side of the specturm aren't that intelligent.

There's also the fact that I'm frustrated with a welther of exams (no, I'm not in Uni--I'm in med school which is a graduate program here) and this is often a good way to take out some frustrations.

Again, my apologies if I really misunderstood what you said.

No worries, it happens on so many forums on the internet all the time. Personally, I don't really see any problems with gay marriage itself. But many people of strong religious beliefs and background (again not just Christians) are whole heartedly against the use of the term "marriage" alongside the word "gay"

Traditions lasting for as long as the man-woman marriage thing has will always encounter resistance when someone tries to change it. Its likely that eventually, for better or worse (no pun intended) things will change though

No worries, it happens on so many forums on the internet all the time. Personally, I don't really see any problems with gay marriage itself. But many people of strong religious beliefs and background (again not just Christians) are whole heartedly against the use of the term "marriage" alongside the word "gay"

Traditions lasting for as long as the man-woman marriage thing has will always encounter resistance when someone tries to change it. Its likely that eventually, for better or worse (no pun intended) things will change


I have faith in humanity. I have to or there is little point in continuing to fight. Things will change for what is right. And what is right is for all peopel to be treated fairly and equally with regard to the features that A. They cannot change, B. Do not affect others and C. Do not affect their ability to perform a given task.

Hi I am a gay person from Canada. Ok, first of all I hate it when people say "gays" it should be "a person who is gay" or "a gay person", (the same goes for the word homosexual, bisexual, etc.), anything else makes it sound like it's wrong. History: 1) the work homosexual did not exist until, I think, 1892 (sometime in the mid-late 1800s at least). 2) Ancient Greece >> home of democracy, philosophy, drama, high equal rights (when it comes to ancient civilisations). Ok in ancient Greece, the Greeks almost worshiped homosexuality. Men would take teenage boys and "teach" them (i.e. SEX > GAY sex, how to be a REAL man lol). Greek Mythology> Zeus had a wife and children yes....but he also fell in love with a young man named Ganymede (sp??) who was "the most beautiful boy". Zeus kidnapped this boy (Hera wasn't too happy about this) and made love to him and then made him his cup barer. 3) Art> MANY of the great artisans and artists (painters) were gay (i.e. it has been said that Leonardo was gay, among MANY MANY others.) Go to the Louvre or any other museum of art and you will see many depictions of homosexuality or at lease art by gay people. 4) Germany and Hitler> (some suspected Hitler of being a closet case but we won't go there lol), before Hitler came into power the "gay life" in Germany was booming. Gay people were accepted and we leading free, "normal" lives. Hitler came into power and killed thousands of them (gay = sin (to some)....ah but murder also = sin....hmmm something wrong there) 5) The Bible>> the bible has been translated sooooooo many times no one has any clue as to what it really says>>> words have been misinterpreted, or added, or changed (i.e. the addition of the word homosexuality to Leviticus). Also, as someone mentioned before: the use of the new testament by Christians...to my knowledge it says nothing about homosexuality (be it a sin or not). Also for those who do follow the Old Testament (I think in the last chapter of the New Testament (perhaps the last sentences)) it says not to add or take away anything from the text of the bible) therefore you MUST follow ALL of the laws in Leviticus....sorry to say it but your Pope is a sinner. The Bible is written in FIGURATIVE language which means it is to be interpreted (at least when interpretation is possible) not taken as literal (yes I realize that it contradicts some of what I've written, but you can't choose to interpret some parts of the bible and not others (yes some parts are not able to be given any other meaning) anyways getting to confusing. Ok, that's all for history...at least for now...Now a quick biology lesson: Homosexuality IS natural. Ha yes it is, it exists in MANY other species. For example the cute little dolphins: some male dolphins have sex with other male dolphins :eek: and ONLY other male dolphins! Now as for marriage many of these dolphins stay with this mate for the rest of their lives...if that is not love and the animal kingdom form of marriage I don't know what is. To touch lightly on sex for reproduction only> there is a species of ape that lives in Africa (no kidding eh) where they have something biologists call "quickies" lol yes that's right. This means that they have sex many times a day for pleasure only and perhaps a sign of dominance. Another thing, because they have sex so often (and with multiple partners) the male's testicles are large...er quite large indeed...much bigger than if they were monogamous and had sex only for the purpose of procreation. Guys this could be one way to make your balls bigger lol....anyways. That's my History and Biology lesson from Canada for today. Have a nice day and remember guys: "It's not the size of the boat mate, it's the motion in the ocean :p" Remember to have fun and stay safe :fluffle:

Since marriage originated in religion, why don't we just get rid of all government benefits that come with being married (i.e. no tax breaks, legal rights to each other's property, etc.) Let the only benefits of marriage come from the church. And if married, private organizations would decide whether or not to pass along benefits to the spouse (i.e. health insurance, flight benefits, bank accounts, company discounts etc.)

I truthfully believe this would end the whole debate, and would be the fairest choice across the board. 80% of the people married would get married in the church anyway, the other 20% (gay or otherwise) could still get married if they found a non-government based entity to perform the ceremony.

Thus, the governement would remove itself from the whole aspect of marriage in all but the judicial courts. They would only be involved in the courts when a private industry is being sued for not living up to any of their own policies regarding benefits toward a spouse. This would not increase the number of lawsuits in the courts, but should actually reduce them since their is no right to the other's property in divorce or death. The spouse would only receive property if such stated in a will.

Incase of divorce, it would be up to the Church, or whoever performs the ceremony, how split property or if and how prenuptual aggreements should be lived up to.

President Adon
Republic of En Talar

Psst, you are supposed to be out of character. I am not the Holy Head Honcho Sheperd dude now, I am some dude living somewhere, with an overinflated opinion of his opinions and a computer.

Yup, what the government needs to do is to remove the power of the church to grant the marraige license. ONly the government could grant the license, and of course, as is constitutional, the thing cannot be denied to any applicant. Churches could decide whom they grant the ceremony to.

But the original defining element of marriage was a man and a woman joining together in holy matrimony. Therefore ONLY a religous establishment can grant a marriage in their own beliefs. If homo's want to get married then start their own friggen religion.

As for punishing people for being gay, thats utterly ridiculous no matter how small a punishment it is. How can you justify punishing someone for something they can't control? Not to mention even if they could control their sexual orientation, it still wouldn' be anyone's business but their own.

What about the discrimination against single white males under the age of 25? We are the MOST descriminated against in America. Every other ethenticity CAN have everything they want expessially education if they only applied themselves and worked for it instead of being angry and redefining their stereotypes.

Everyone has the right to be happy as long as that happiness doesn't come at the expense of others. Who is being hurt by giving gay people the same basic rights as everyone else? Every person on the planet should have the right to marry who they love.

Wrong people only have the right to breathe air ... everything else in life is either worked for ... stolen for ... or killed for. And who is hurt ... i am dammit i worked hard to find a good girl whom i want to spend the rest of my life with and no gay guy should be able to sullen that by cheating and taking another loser who cant get a girl of their own.

There is absolutely no need for the government to define a word for us. If we were to give gays equal rights as straights than we would be giving them what is essentially marriage, and it's not as if we wouldn't call it marriage. All civil unions create is segrigation. I ask you, what's wrong with giving blacks their own schools as long as they're just as good?


Because all we do is give give give ... what have i done to deserve to be taxed extra and descriminated agianst because some former americans decided to import cheap labor ... the mexicans come here on their own free will u hear them complaining ... no ... because they KNOW its better here than in mexico thats why they left ... if they dont like it in america fine let them buy a flight back to africa. I say do away with equal opportunity laws because they are THE most prejudce things in existance ... why should i be turned down for a job when i am more qualified just because a company has to fill a minority quota ... to hell with that ... if i worked for it and im better suited for the job them i should get it.

I get what you're saying, but all the children that see these people are going to think that they can have crushes on boys when they're boys themselves and vise versa for girls! It's inhumane! And it's still a choice one makes, they fall into pressure and think that it's something they were born with and it just uncovered itself.

Well simple as this ... can 2 guys make a baby together ... no ... can 2 women make a baby together ... no ... so if it was natural for them to be together they should somehow be able to make a baby together ... nature is about survival of a species ... homosexuality isnt natural because there is no way for their genes to survive ... its 2 dead ends on a family tree. And before you homo's say that you can adopt ... ur still not making a baby ur buying someone elses who had it the way nature intended so thats still not natural.

That would be wrong. We are not created to produce, we are created to pass on our genetic material. That doesn't always mean reproducing. It could mean simply caring for children in your family that are already born. If they survive than your genetic material is being propagated.

No ur are totally wrong on that ... your ideals are passed on not your genetic material ... in order for that to happen you MUST have an egg and a sperm and TOGETHER they make 1 whole new set of gene's. It ALWAYS means reproducing. And before all u scientists start in on gene therapy and genetic modification ... if u think thats natural just go outside and hang urself cuz it isnt ... if it was emu's would be doing the same thing.

actually, isn't the quote a man shall not lie with another man the way he lies with a woman or some such? in which case, well, two men having sex won't be doing it the same way a man and a woman will be...

and who wouldn't want to have sex with a woman?

women have beautiful bodies, the curves are so perfect... probably why so many guys fantasize about threesomes and lesbian action. more uncovered, beautiful curves in one place.

totally agree. women have beautiful bodies ... even if some women's beautiful bodies are hidden under mounds of fat :P j/k we love even the overweight women too!!!

Two consenting adults can do whatever they want, I don't really care.

Thats like saying an adult giraffe and an adult leopard can get it on ... but do you see that happening?

However, homosexuality is abnormal behavior, and should not be taught in our schools that it is normal behavior.

so true ...

nope not a choice. hate to break it to you.

one of my close friends has spent years trying to figure out his sexuality. he went off pretending to be straight for a while to please some of his friends who aren't terribly friendly to gay people... but he's come to the realization that he is gay. and i'm proud of him. not for being gay, but for figuring it out and being happy with who he is.

no ur proud of him for not going after your girlfriend. :)

In fact same sex unions already fall under the dictionary version of marriage in the two I checked before replying originally (www.m-w.com and www.dictionary.com, if anyone cares).

Hence my original comment.

Ur right and someone needs to be killed for that ... this crap has gone far enuf ... marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman ... government should not get involved. Only religous orders can give out marriages since it is their ideal in teh first place. To do otherwise would be like letting hillary clinton take all of brittney spear's music ... slapping her face on it and selling it as her own. If its the religous order's belief that homosexuals do not fit in their requirements to become married then the homosexuals need to get over it.

Well, if being gay is so wrong, what would you propose to do about it?

You really dont want to know.

Maybe decent minded people who do not hate or fear gay people need to look away from the the symptom (idiot biggots, and brainwashed followers) and look closer at the disease (organized religion) that spawns such predjucice. Religious people are not inherantly intollerant, but it seems that a disproporionate ammount of hate comes from that area. What ever happened to love thy neighbor as you love thyself?

The disease is the thought that homosexual behavior is somehow a natural way of things ... the longer you cloud the idea and give doubt that maybe it is possible or correct in some way the more people with go the path of least of least resistance and to accept it as something new ... change just to change isnt always the best course and in this matter changing laws to make ppl accept that something that isnt natural is ... is a form of global brain washing or mind conditioning. Your urges you get it on is your urge to mate ... dont try to associate a natural instinct with an unnatural one ... how many times in nature have you heard/ witnessed/ heard others witnessing 2 male bull elephants engaged in sexual activities?

how many times in nature have you heard/ witnessed/ heard others witnessing 2 male bull elephants engaged in sexual activities?

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

Run along, noob. Your whole argumentation was just crushed.

Thats like saying an adult giraffe and an adult leopard can get it on ... but do you see that happening?
Umm, that's nothing like what he said. He said that he doesn't care what two consenting adults do together.
Ur right and someone needs to be killed for that ... this crap has gone far enuf ... marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman ... government should not get involved. Only religous orders can give out marriages since it is their ideal in teh first place. To do otherwise would be like letting hillary clinton take all of brittney spear's music ... slapping her face on it and selling it as her own. If its the religous order's belief that homosexuals do not fit in their requirements to become married then the homosexuals need to get over it.
But there are quite certainly religions that condone same-sex marriage.

*snicker*

If they are persecuting you because you are doing something wrong, then your arguement holds no water and it doesn't apply... The Church's stance is that it is ok to be oriented a different way, but not OK to act upon these "urges" for two reasons.

1. It just is not "natural" with all the mechanics.
2. The CHurch only wants procreative sex.
1. What is wrong to you is not necessarily wrong in God's eyes and HE will be the judge in any case?

2. Read the Sermon on the Mount by Emmett Fox, and you will learn that God is non denominational, so when you say the Church, you mean a religion and a teaching of God's word by many different practioners. Guess what.... not all these practioners agree on what IS God's word, so when you state YOUR case about what a Church wants, you could err in judgement?

So you can "snicker" all you want, as it doesn't make you all knowledgeable, nor does it qualify you to pass judgement on what is or isn't "natural".

All the arguments I've seen are based on religious morals. Out of interest, are there any atheists out there who have a problem with homosexuality?

All the arguments I've seen are based on religious morals. Out of interest, are there any atheists out there who have a problem with homosexuality?

AFAIK, none who haven't had bad personal experiences. There really is almost nobody in this world that I care who they sleep with.

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?

Why don't you get another marriage for black people? Maybe one marriage for tall people, and another for short people? Would that help.

Don't beleive in dicrimination, my dick you don't.

Yeah, not believing in discrimination, that's something like saying the Holocaust never took place, a crime in some countries. (And I guess I lost the argument now.)

Let's split the country...or do it by town or something...all the "traditionalists" as mentioned in the first few pages can live in one half, all the people who don't want to deal with them can live in the other half. People torn between can live on the border and when they want a convincing argument one way or the other they are within range to chat with someone.

I apologize that it has taken me so long to reply to this smouldering pile of bovine scatology, but I had a test this morning that took precedent over putting this incredibly large pile of crap right.

First off, based on what I've read here, I can make a few conclusions about you:

1. You are white.
2. You are well-off financially.
3. You have few if any friends or personal contacts with people who are not like you.
4. You have a martyr syndrome and like to view yourself as the much wronged race.
5. You are under 25 and quite possibly under 18 and little to no experience with the world.

That being said, let me clear up a few things about myself:
1. I am white.
2. I was raised in an upper-middleclass, protestant family in Mississippi--can you say Southern WASP?
3. Many of my friends are of other ethnicities and many are gay and straight.
4. Yes, I am gay.
5. I am 24 and in medical school. Before that I attended an excellent college where I majored in biology--hence I actually understnad evolution and why homosexuality really doesn't have a negative impact on it and quite possibly has a positive one.
6. I consider myself to be a non-theistic universalist who happens to practice at a Christian church.
7. I do not expect you to understand number 6.

Now, on to your specific (lack of) points:

But the original defining element of marriage was a man and a woman joining together in holy matrimony. Therefore ONLY a religous establishment can grant a marriage in their own beliefs. If homo's want to get married then start their own friggen religion.

The original definition of marriage was a father giving his daughter to another man as a basic slave to allow for joining of property or transfer of goods or for military alliance purposes. It was that long before religion took over it and it was that long AFTER religion took over it. Beyond that, mindless adherence to tradition without a good reason is not an excuse for anything.

Also, no gay person is asking that any religious establishment (because there are some beyond Christian churches, though I doubt you truly realize that in more than name) grant them a marriage. For all we care, the Catholics and Baptists and all the rest can condemn us to hell and refuse to recognize we are married. What gay people are asking is that the government that *WE* pay our taxes too treat us as equals. We want the rights and responsibilities that go along with marriage. Those rights and responsibilities that straight couples get do not come from the church--they come from the government. *NO* and I repeat *NO* religious organization should ever be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that they do not recognize. Of course, that's already the way it is isn't it? You do realize that there are *CIVIL* marriages performed by a judge or a justice of the peace? And you do realize that there are religious groups that do perform gay marriages right? (some Methodists, Church of God, Universal Life Church, Unitarian Universalists, Episcopal, etc).

So basically what you are proposing is that YOUR religious view be foisted off on everyone. Can we all say violation of the second amendment?


What about the discrimination against single white males under the age of 25? We are the MOST descriminated against in America. Every other ethenticity CAN have everything they want expessially education if they only applied themselves and worked for it instead of being angry and redefining their stereotypes.

Tommy hit me so I hit him back! And then he hit me so I hit him again! WAH! I'm so picked on!.

In case you didn't get the point from my little message above, here it is another way. I'm white. I'm Southern. I'm under 25. I've NEVER been discriminated against by the government. EVER. How could I be--white men control the government. And even if I had been, that would not justify my discrimination against others. Did not Jesus teach that you should turn the other cheek and do what's right even when its not easy?

As for your second point here, I'm not sure I really follow what you mean because your grammar and syntax are poorly lacking (even beyond the normal typos that I try to overlook because I make them so frequently). What exactly is it that other ethnicities can have that you cannot? And what stereotypes are they trying to redefine? If you perhaps mean that they are trying to BREAK their stereotypes, well that's a whole different can of worms. Most people realize that stereotypes rarely hold true in individual circimstances and, as such, should not be used to judge individuals unfairly. Of course, I can see that you support doing this, probably because it makes life easier for you to process.



Wrong people only have the right to breathe air ... everything else in life is either worked for ... stolen for ... or killed for. And who is hurt ... i am dammit i worked hard to find a good girl whom i want to spend the rest of my life with and no gay guy should be able to sullen that by cheating and taking another loser who cant get a girl of their own.

Actually, under our current system of government, people have the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to be treated equally under the law, to not have their rights taken away without a compelling reason and then only by due process, the right to a speedy trial, the right to face their accusers, the right to not self-incriminate. . . .well, you should get the picture.

Did you go out and fight for these rights? I really don't think so. The only people in recent times who have had to fight for these rights are members of minorities--whether it be poor people, black people, asians, hispanics, or indeed homosexuals.

And how does a gay man finding and loving another gay man change a relationship between you and a woman you love? Is a gay union going to make you love one another less? Is it going to cheapen your marriage vows so that you start cheating on one another? If your "love" means so little to you that what other people, totally unreleated to you do can affect it is such ways, then perhaps you aren't really all that in love.

And here's a little factoid for you to learn. BEING GAY ISN'T A CHOICE. IT ISN'T BECAUSE WE CANNOT GET WOMEN. Have you seen most gay men? Let's face it, many many of us are HOT! Most of us would probably like to have been straight because we wouldn't have to deal with people like you--sadly that isn't an option. So instead we are ourselves and we are willing to fight for our rights.


Because all we do is give give give ... what have i done to deserve to be taxed extra and descriminated agianst because some former americans decided to import cheap labor ... the mexicans come here on their own free will u hear them complaining ... no ... because they KNOW its better here than in mexico thats why they left ... if they dont like it in america fine let them buy a flight back to africa. I say do away with equal opportunity laws because they are THE most prejudce things in existance ... why should i be turned down for a job when i am more qualified just because a company has to fill a minority quota ... to hell with that ... if i worked for it and im better suited for the job them i should get it.

What does any of this have to do with gay marriage? I agree that the rich should not pay a higher percentage of taxes just because they are rich. I do think that's wrong. However, this doesn't justify disciminating against others. To do so just continues the cycle.

As for the seccond part about Equal Opportunity laws, I think you are confusing them with Affirmative Action. EO just says that you don't discriminate based on race, gender, etc. Which is how it should be. Affirmative Action is the often abused law that favors minorities. I agree with you, minorities shouldn't be given special rights--just equal ones.

Again, what does that have to do with gay marriage?


Well simple as this ... can 2 guys make a baby together ... no ... can 2 women make a baby together ... no ... so if it was natural for them to be together they should somehow be able to make a baby together ... nature is about survival of a species ... homosexuality isnt natural because there is no way for their genes to survive ... its 2 dead ends on a family tree. And before you homo's say that you can adopt ... ur still not making a baby ur buying someone elses who had it the way nature intended so thats still not natural.


Can an infertile couple make a baby? Can a women past menopause make one? Should we ban your grandmother from getting married or force her to get a divorce once she can no longer concieve? Let's face it, we left behind the idea that marriage was only for reproduction a long time ago.

And if homosexuality is so unnatural, why has it been observed in pretty much every mammalian species we've studied?

You are right about nature being about the survival of the species (note, this is where my training as a biologist comes in). But note that survival of the species does not mean that every single member of the species has to reproduce for that species to be successful. Look at ants--only the queen reproduces while the other females support her. Homosexuals can be seen as filling a similiar evolutionary cache. We do not create our own offspring, but make it easier for others to care for their's. The human population is already out of control, so why are you so opposed to people who don't reproduce?

And you know, I can see why you are against gay adoption. Afterall, having two loving parents is so much worse than living in an orphanage with a hundred other kids and not enough money or than being shuttled from foster home to foster home with little to no stablity. /SARCASM


No ur are totally wrong on that ... your ideals are passed on not your genetic material ... in order for that to happen you MUST have an egg and a sperm and TOGETHER they make 1 whole new set of gene's. It ALWAYS means reproducing. And before all u scientists start in on gene therapy and genetic modification ... if u think thats natural just go outside and hang urself cuz it isnt ... if it was emu's would be doing the same thing.

Actually your genetic material is passed on too. . .but that point is moot because of my above arguements about not having to pass on your individual genetic material to propagate the species.

And let's have another bio lesson shall we? An egg and a sperm do NOT make a whole new set of genes. Hate to break it to you. Each gamete carries half of the genes (or 1 full set of chromosomes--humans have 2 sets) and when they fuse, a new potential human is formed. The genes aren't new--they aren't from random chance. They are from the parents--1/2 from each parent. As for emu's--if they had our intellect, I'm sure they would be doing the same thing. It's only the humans who have an emu's intellect that don't seem to understand this.


Thats like saying an adult giraffe and an adult leopard can get it on ... but do you see that happening?

Actually adult lions and adult tigers can and do get it on. They create tigons and ligers. Granted that isn't the point the previous poster was making and you know it. Gay sex is nothing like interspecies sex. How many straws are you holding onto in your desperate attempt to grasp?


no ur proud of him for not going after your girlfriend. :)

Hey folks, guess what! We have a mind reader! He knows what other people are thinking and feeling and he can tell them even when they say otherwise.

There's a word for people who think that they can do that--psychotic.

But since you seem to be happy gay guys aren't going after said girlfriend--shouldn't you want more guys to be gay? Afterall, there are more girls for you then.

Oh wait, but what other people do cheapens your relationships for some inexplicable reason . . . . . I forgot.


Ur right and someone needs to be killed for that ... this crap has gone far enuf ... marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman ... government should not get involved. Only religous orders can give out marriages since it is their ideal in teh first place. To do otherwise would be like letting hillary clinton take all of brittney spear's music ... slapping her face on it and selling it as her own. If its the religous order's belief that homosexuals do not fit in their requirements to become married then the homosexuals need to get over it.

Yeah, see above for responses ot a lot of this--you know, why its not holy, why we are only talking about secular/civil marriage, etc. I really have to respond about your misconception about only religious orders giving out marriages--SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN DOING IT FOR AT LEAST A HUNDRED YEARS. The licenses and the rights come from the government, not from religions. This isn't a difficult concept.

Let me reiterate another previous point as well: SOME RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE. Is it okay to discriminate against them? Do you really speak for all Christians in that?


The disease is the thought that homosexual behavior is somehow a natural way of things ...

Check with the APA. . homosexuality is not a disease. It is natural. It is one of the normal expressions of human sexuality, just as having green eyes is one of the normal expressions of human ocular pigmentation. Just because its not the norm, doesn't make it abnormal.


the longer you cloud the idea and give doubt that maybe it is possible or correct in some way the more people with go the path of least of least resistance and to accept it as something new ... change just to change isnt always the best course and in this matter changing laws to make ppl accept that something that isnt natural is ... is a form of global brain washing or mind conditioning.

How dare those homosexuals with their evil agenda dare to say "We are humans and should be treated equally." How dare they opposed centuries of tradition that say they are subhuman! I am so shocked that people want to be treated like people!

Opposing change for no good reason besides tradition is just giving in to centuries of brainwashing.


Your urges you get it on is your urge to mate ... dont try to associate a natural instinct with an unnatural one ... how many times in nature have you heard/ witnessed/ heard others witnessing 2 male bull elephants engaged in sexual activities?

Quite a few. It happens--elephants, many birds, dolphins, penguins, deer, dogs, cats. It happens in all of them. Perhaps you should research before you speak.

Oh, but wait. . that might force you to think about how small minded you are being . . .

Thanks for saying all the things I can't be bothered thinking through Pracus. :p

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?
Gentlemen, start your engines!

Pracus, I love you. You've saved me from wasting an hour of my time pointing all this out. Since I don't think he's going to appreciate it, I'm going to give you a medal. :)
>>The Official Medal for Heroic Opposition to Intolerance<<

Pracus, I love you. You've saved me from wasting an hour of my time pointing all this out. Since I don't think he's going to appreciate it, I'm going to give you a medal. :)
>>The Official Medal for Heroic Opposition to Intolerance<<

<bows> Thank you very much. I am glad that I coudl be of assistance and am honored to receive such a prestigious award :)

Granted, I still can't believe that I spent so much time typing that out--I guess I really will do anything to avoid studying pathology.

Awesome post, sadly, he/she will most likely hold unto to thier own bigoted beliefs even though the facts are being forced-fed down thier throats :(

Oh yeah, I firmly believe a majority of the homophobics have an attraction to people of the same sex themselves. Quite sad, if you ask me.

Pracus, thank you for telling him he's a bigoted idiot the long way. Since I doubt it really helped him see the light, I'll tell him the short way.

Kilihid, you're a bigoted idiot.

Hi I am a gay person from Canada.
Hi, i am a bisexual person from Germany.
And i happen to know that next to no one reads a post that long with no structure. It just hurts eyes and brain.

Being from Germany, i want to adress how it works around here. We have a strict seperation of civil and church marriages. A couple that is wedded in church does so to get the blessing of God (or whoever they believe in) and nothing else. Legally they are still singles. This system has provided the acceptance that a secular union with tax breaks, inheritance rights etc is possible for everyone. On the other hand, it doesnt force the church in any way, like accepting couples who lived in sin, were married and divorced before (something the RCC doesnt like), etc.

Civil unions for homosexuals are legal, but dont offer exactly the same rights. All the basics are there, like sharing of goods, hospital visiting rights etc, some like lower tax rates arent. The rationale for this is the impossibility to procreate, which is important for the survival of the community. Considering that the civil union in its current form is the result of several attempts and amendments, each getting more liberal, we might see a complete adaption of heterosexual marriage laws to homosexual unions.

Why am i teling you this? Because i know that homosexuals here are very happy to have civil unions and dont give too much if it is named "marriage" or "union" or "homosexual partnership in life", which is the roughly translated legal term. Let the churches have their marriage and the homosexuals the same rights, what is so hard about it?

Just for the record: I *heart* Pracus!

oooh, another gay marriage thread! maybe there will be some new material (for once) from the homophobes!

*20 minutes of reading through thread*

drat, no new material. oh well, if they aren't going to bother to come up with fresh stuff then neither will Bottle...

REPOST:

How is it that opponents of gay marriage can get away with recycling the same arguments (and I use the term generously) that were used by racists 50 years ago? Why is it that so many people are unable to learn from history, and unable to recognize that today's homophobes will, in the end, be regarded in much the way we regard anti-misceginationists of the past?

Here are some similarities I can see:

1. Argument of God's will.

Basically, that God didn't want it so we shouldn't either. In 1959, a mixed-race couple was put on trial for violation of laws against mixed-race marriage, and the trial judge had this to say:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

This argument is the easiest to throw away, since we all know that speculation about what an all-powerful Creator may or may not want is not considered grounds for law in any civilized nation.

2. Argument of "equal oppression."

This is the idea that since all people are allowed the freedom to marry only a person of the opposite sex, it doesn't count as discrimination because gay people labor under the same restriction as white people. The Virginia State court made this same argument in support of its laws prohibiting mixed-race marriage:

"The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."

This argument wasn't good enough for the US Supreme Court back then, and I don't see any reason why it should be good enough for us today.

3. Argument that it is in the best interests of the State and the people to defend racism/homophobia.

In Naim v. Naim (1955) the Virginia State Court of Appeals concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride." It is easy to see the similarities to today, when it is often claimed that the government must protect the "sexual purity" of its citizens, prevent the corruption of sexuality, and the obliteration of traditional sexual values.

4. Argument of tradition.

The claim that marriage has always been defined a certain way, and therefore we shouldn't change it. This was exactly the same argument raised by those who saw no reason to overturn laws against mixed-race marriage; such mixed-race marriages had been prohibited since the founding colonies, so why make them legal and violate the traditional definition? Fortunately this argument was tossed aside by the courts, proving that the definition of marriage is not graven in stone, and that we can and do change our traditions for the better.

5. Argument from inability to procreate.

Supposed "biological evidence" was often referred to that claimed mixed-race couples could not produce children, and therefore that their marriages had no value. This is quite similar to myths that homosexual couples cannot have children or make families, and is often cited as a reason to deny marital status. The reality is that homosexuality and infertility are not linked, and homosexuals can have biological children through a variety of means.

This argument also is an insult to all adopted children and adoptive families, as it totally devalues the wonderful act of welcoming an otherwise unwanted child into a loving home.

Finally, this argument also supposes that inability or unwillingness to produce children should disqualify a couple from marriage, yet that is not a standard currently applied to heterosexual couples; infertile couples are permitted to wed or to remain married, and a study from the late 90s showed that over 4 million married couples in America described themselves as "childless by choice," with no intent to ever have children.

6. The infamous "slippery slope" argument.

This is the one you see most often, the claim that if we allow gay people to wed then next we will be allowing people to marry animals or toasters or whathaveyou. History has proven how pathetic this sort of falacy is, since it was claimed that allowing inter-racial marriage would lead instantly to legalized polygamy, incest, beastiality and necrophilia...more than 50 years later, we can all see how stupid those claims really were. Not to mention the fact that we can, and do, draw the line in all our legal judgments; claiming that gay marriage is a slippery slope to things like beastiality is like claiming that if we allow adults to drive cars then we're starting down a slippery slope to letting infants drive cars.

We can get Brian Molko to grow his hair out again and do his androgynous thing. He can be a figurehead for the movement!

(err, is there something wrong with me if I though he was hot like that? then again, me being transsexual and all, I've always admired a guy that can pass as a woman...)

Haha... saw 'Brian Molko' and had to reply.
Personally I like Brian better with his short hair, but I must admit, he's one of the few guys I actually like in women's clothes.

P.S. - Seen the 'Soulmates Never Die' DVD? The electric harmonica is the hottest instrument EVER.

EDIT: So it sticks to topic... nothing wrong with gay marriage. So there. :P

agree with the no gay marriage thing.

agree with the no gay marriage thing.
Thats nice :fluffle: :p

Haha... saw 'Brian Molko' and had to reply.
Personally I like Brian better with his short hair, but I must admit, he's one of the few guys I actually like in women's clothes.

P.S. - Seen the 'Soulmates Never Die' DVD? The electric harmonica is the hottest instrument EVER.
Hmm, no I haven't.
Electric harmonica, you say?

Interesting.

Christians, or people of any religion that oposes homosexuality, cannot accept the fact that homosexuals are born homosexuals because that would mean that God himself made them that way. If God made them that way then that would make God a hypocrite since the bible is perceived to frown on homosexuality. It has nothing to do with any factually based evidence. It is simply the inability to accept that God would create a person in a way that the supposed interpretation of God's will frowns upon.

Hi, i am a bisexual person from Germany.
And i happen to know that next to no one reads a post that long with no structure. It just hurts eyes and brain.

Being from Germany, i want to adress how it works around here. We have a strict seperation of civil and church marriages. A couple that is wedded in church does so to get the blessing of God (or whoever they believe in) and nothing else. Legally they are still singles. This system has provided the acceptance that a secular union with tax breaks, inheritance rights etc is possible for everyone. On the other hand, it doesnt force the church in any way, like accepting couples who lived in sin, were married and divorced before (something the RCC doesnt like), etc.

Civil unions for homosexuals are legal, but dont offer exactly the same rights. All the basics are there, like sharing of goods, hospital visiting rights etc, some like lower tax rates arent. The rationale for this is the impossibility to procreate, which is important for the survival of the community. Considering that the civil union in its current form is the result of several attempts and amendments, each getting more liberal, we might see a complete adaption of heterosexual marriage laws to homosexual unions.

Why am i teling you this? Because i know that homosexuals here are very happy to have civil unions and dont give too much if it is named "marriage" or "union" or "homosexual partnership in life", which is the roughly translated legal term. Let the churches have their marriage and the homosexuals the same rights, what is so hard about it?


Because in America we do not consider separate programs for separate peopel to be equal. Youv'e said yourself that the homosexuals in Germany don't get the same rights.

Don't get me wrong, Iw ould be thrilled to get what they get there--but that doesn't mean I would stop fighting for anything less than full acceptance and equality because that is what all humans deserve.

Just for the record: I *heart* Pracus!

Really? Are you a gay male? Can I have your phone number? ;)

Christians, or people of any religion that oposes homosexuality, cannot accept the fact that homosexuals are born homosexuals because that would mean that God himself made them that way. If God made them that way then that would make God a hypocrite since the bible is perceived to frown on homosexuality. It has nothing to do with any factually based evidence. It is simply the inability to accept that God would create a person in a way that the supposed interpretation of God's will frowns upon.
But no, god just *couldn't* have done that!
Because God hates fags!

See:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/

It's on a website, it *must* be true!

Or maybe not...
:D

agree with the no gay marriage thing.

Wow! What an excellent arguement from a homophobe! At least its one that's easy to refute.

I disagree with you!

But no, god just *couldn't* have done that!
Because God hates fags!

See:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/

It's on a website, it *must* be true!

Or maybe not...
:D

I think I should start my own website:

http://www.godhatestupidintolerantbigottedhomophobeswhostartwebsitescondemninghomosexualsfornoreasonotherth antheirbirthandtheyneedtogetoveritandactuallyreadthebibleandpracticetheunconditionallovegodactuallyt eachers.com

I realize that you can't read that. . . but mouse over it and you can read the address window in the bottom of your browser--atleast you can in Mozilla and I'm pretty sure in MIE.

I think I should start my own website:

http://www.godhatestupidintolerantbigottedhomophobeswhostartwebsitescondemninghomosexualsfornoreasonotherth antheirbirthandtheyneedtogetoveritandactuallyreadthebibleandpracticetheunconditionallovegodactuallyt eachers.com

I realize that you can't read that. . . but mouse over it and you can read the address window in the bottom of your browser--atleast you can in Mozilla and I'm pretty sure in MIE.
Now that would be awesome.

Now that would be awesome.

I wonder if there is a limit on how long domain names can be?

I wonder if there is a limit on how long domain names can be?
yes ... traditionaly 32 charicters in the main doimain (sub domains not included) but this may have been changed

I wonder if there is a limit on how long domain names can be?
Hmm, I've seen some pretty long ones done through HugeUrl, like this:

http://www.hugeurl.com/?NzkwNTc3YzE5N2ZkZTA4OTU2MWE1ZWM1Mzk0MjJjOTQmOSZWbTB3ZUdReFNYaGlSbVJZVjBkNFZWWXdaRzlYUmxsM1drWk9WVTF XY0hwWGEyTTFWakpLU0dWR1dsWmlXRkYzVmpCYVMyTXlTa1ZVYkhCWFZteHdVVlp0TVhwbFJsbDVWR3RrV0dKR2NIQldNR1J2WlZ aYWNsVnJaRnBXTURFMFYydG9SMVZ0U2tsUmJUbFZWbTFvUkZscVJtdFhSMUpJVW14d1YwMUVWWGRXYTJRd1ZqRlZlVk5yWkdwU1Z HeGhWbXBPVTFZeGNFVlNiWFJYVFZkU01GVnRlRk5oVmxwelkwWndWMkpVUlhkWmVrWmFaVlpPY21KR1NtbFNNbWhvVjFkMFlWWXd NSGhqUmxwWVlsVmFWRlJXWkZOTlJuQkdWMnhrYUZac2NIcFpNRnB2VmpGS2MyTkhhRnBsYTFweVZUQmFUMk15U2tkWGJXeG9UVWh DV2xZeFpEUmlNa2wzVFZoT2FsSldXbFJaYTJoRFl6RmFjVkp0UmxSV2JYUXpWbXhTUjFZd01WZGpSV1JYVFc1U00xWnFTa1psVmx aeFZHeGthR0V4Y0ZSWGJGWmhaREZLYzFwSVNsQldiVkp6V1d4b2IxZHNXWGhYYlhST1Vtc3hOVlp0TlU5V2JVcElWV3hzV21KVVJ sUldiRnBYWXpGV2NscEdhR2xTYmtKS1ZrWmFVMVV4V1hkTldFcHFVbXh3WVZZd2FFTlRSbGwzVjJ4d2JHSkdXakZXTW5ocllVZEZ lbEZyYkZkV00wSklXVlJHYTFZeVRrWmFSMFpUVFcxb2RsWkdXbTlSTVd4WFYxaG9ZVkpGU205VVZscFhUa1paZVdSSGRGZGlWWEJ KVmxkNGIxZHRTbFZTYkZKWFRVWndhRnBGWkU5T2JFcDBaVVprYVZacmJ6Rldha293WWpGUmVWSnJaRmhYUjFKWVdWZDRkMVl4V25 STlZ6bHFZa1pzTTFZeU1VZFZNa1kyVm14d1drMUdjSEpaVmxwaFVteGtjMkpHWkdsWFJVcEpWbXRTUzFVeFdYaFhibFpVWWtWS1d GbHNXa3RWUmxwSFdUTm9hVTFFUWpSV01qVkxWMGRLUms1V1RsVldiRlkwVkd4YVlWZEZOVlpQVjJoWFlUTkJkMVpzWTNoaU1WcDB VbGhvYWxKWWFHRlVWVnAzVjBac05sTnJaRlJTVkd4WFZHeGFUMkZXWkVoaFJteFhZbGhvY2xSVldsSmxWa3B5V2tab2FXRjZWbmR XVjNSaFpERmtWMkpHVmxSaVZHeFhWVzE0ZDJWc1dYbGxTR1JwVWpCd1IxWXlOWGRXYkZsNllVUk9XbFpzY0doVmJYaHJZekZLYzJ GSGFFNVdia0paVm10a05GbFdiRmRYV0doWFlteGFWMWxzYUZOV1JteFpZMFprVmxKdFVsbGFWVnBoWVRBeFJWSnNUbFpTYkVZelZ VWkZPVkJSUFQwPQ==

So I suppose that browsers can handle URLs that long...

yes ... traditionaly 32 charicters in the main doimain (sub domains not included) but this may have been changed
Oh...
Damn.

Don't you know if we allow gay marraige it will immediately invalidate the marraiges of all hetrosexuals?

And god will send a tsunami to wipe out America.

It's against American values to allow people we disagree with to have equal rights.

It will make all our children become homosexuals.

It will spread AIDS because everyone knows only homos and drug addicts get it.

Only people who plan to be fruitful and multiply should ever be able to get married.

All things that were once true should stay that way.

It's unnatural. Those wolves and swans that are homos are tools of satan.

Homosexuality is a disease. Churches can cure that. They should all go get cured, not married.

Did I miss any? :headbang:

yes ... traditionaly 32 charicters in the main doimain (sub domains not included) but this may have been changed

So for safety how about something like:

http://godhatesstupidbigots.whostartwebsitesabouthatinghomosexuals.becausethosepeopleareidiots.whowouldneve rknowhowtoloveunconditionally.becausetheyarefuckingretards.whoaretrappedinhate.com

gays should be allowed a civil marriage, as it gives them rights equal to married couples. for example, rights of next of kin. If an unmarried gay dies, then it is not automatically their partner who is notified first, or first in line to inheritence, even if they have been together for longer than a married couple. it's ridiculous!
:fluffle:

REPOST:

How is it that opponents of gay marriage can get away with recycling the same arguments (and I use the term generously) that were used by racists 50 years ago? Why is it that so many people are unable to learn from history, and unable to recognize that today's homophobes will, in the end, be regarded in much the way we regard anti-misceginationists of the past?


They have learned a new trick. Accusing those with whom they disagree of demonstrating the immorality that they themselves demonstrate.

I don't remember the venue, but Jerry Falwell, while arguing with a pro gay marriage activist said unto him, "you remind me of someone who, back in the slavery days, said "how does it affect you if someone down the road owns a slave?" in response to the claim that gay marriage is not a threat to straight marriage.

I guess it's like the bible says of the damned. "they do not see with their eyes nor feel with their hearts" Because Jerry Falwell is damned and does not feel with his heart he thinks that his insipid slavery argument works just because language plugs in the same way. He doesn't realize that the two are not comprable because he is capable of sympathizing neither with the slave nor the homosexual. All he can sympathize with are the hatemongers and the slaveholders.

Don't you know if we allow gay marraige it will immediately invalidate the marraiges of all hetrosexuals?

And god will send a tsunami to wipe out America.

It's against American values to allow people we disagree with to have equal rights.

It will make all our children become homosexuals.

It will spread AIDS because everyone knows only homos and drug addicts get it.

Only people who plan to be fruitful and multiply should ever be able to get married.

All things that were once true should stay that way.

It's unnatural. Those wolves and swans that are homos are tools of satan.

Homosexuality is a disease. Churches can cure that. They should all go get cured, not married.

Did I miss any? :headbang:
You hit the nail right on the head. Good job! ;)

So for safety how about something like:

http://godhatesstupidbigots.whostartwebsitesabouthatinghomosexuals.becausethosepeopleareidiots.whowouldneve rknowhowtoloveunconditionally.becausetheyarefuckingretards.whoaretrappedinhate.com
That would work (or you could do it sub folder in a virtual directory)

http://godhatesstupidbigots/whostartwebsitesablouthatinghomosexuals/ (so on and so forth)

Did I miss any? :headbang:

If you did, I'm sure we'll all hear it regurgitated from some mindless homophobe at some point in the near future. Hell, it will probably be someone who's already been corrected but refuses to listen.

Sometimes I really hate the fact that this is my chosen Crusade. Still, every now and then you convince someone and that's worth the many, many that refuse to listen to anything besides their own small-minded bigotry.

You know, looking at my recent posts, one might call me militaristic and bitter. No?

gays should be allowed a civil marriage, as it gives them rights equal to married couples. for example, rights of next of kin. If an unmarried gay dies, then it is not automatically their partner who is notified first, or first in line to inheritence, even if they have been together for longer than a married couple. it's ridiculous!
:fluffle:


Thank you! That's all we are asking for.

Thank you! That's all we are asking for.
I understand ... really that is what you are going for

What I dont understand is how they think they have the right to determine what marrige is

No current religion created religion ... they all followed earlier examples THEY have the same right to define marrige as anyone else

Don't you know if we allow gay marraige it will immediately invalidate the marraiges of all hetrosexuals?

And god will send a tsunami to wipe out America.

It's against American values to allow people we disagree with to have equal rights.

It will make all our children become homosexuals.

It will spread AIDS because everyone knows only homos and drug addicts get it.

Only people who plan to be fruitful and multiply should ever be able to get married.

All things that were once true should stay that way.

It's unnatural. Those wolves and swans that are homos are tools of satan.

Homosexuality is a disease. Churches can cure that. They should all go get cured, not married.

Did I miss any? :headbang:
Oh wait, you left one out: "It's Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" :p

Oh wait, you left one out: "It's Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" :p

And that's a mainstay of the bigot's arguement. . .how coudl we forget?!?

Bad Bottle! Bad!

One thing though, I have one problem with gays, that is they ruined things for straights like sailor uniforms. Noone will be caught dead in those anymore. The gays wanted to play a little dress up and there it went. Same with some names like Butch.

Gays didn't do that, straights who stereotyped gays did that.

Think of it like this: the world's population has been skyrocketing for way too long, gays have been around longer, I realize, but their numbers have grown by leaps and bounds the last...10 years. This is Mother Nature's Way of saying 'hey, stop fucking like rabbits and pay attention to the world around you'..it's an evolution of humanity for population control. I may be completely off-base, but it's a theory :P

By the way, calling them all freaks of nature is not going to endear them to your twisted way of thinking.... :headbang: Unless of course, you don't care, in which case, you can continue living under your rock :)
_________________________________________________________________


But you have to think that there is something wrong with gay people. I mean, most of them are nice people and are pretty normal, you know, same intelligence as everyone else. But we are created to reproduce, so when you think about it. A man trying to impregnate another man and a women trying to impregnate another women is just kind of rediculous. So when you get right down to it, it is kind of messed up. Sort of like freaks of nature, but not really

But do you get what Im saying?[/QUOTE]

You hit the nail right on the head. Good job! ;)


Both of you are idiots :headbang: ....if marriage is so sacred, and christians are all-loving...why is it that 50% of all 'marriages' nowadays end in *divorce*?? Tell me...I want to know...really

Tell me 'exactly' how shallow you people are to think that two people in more love than you've ever seen before getting married could possibly invalidate every heterosexual union? *That* makes me sick...bigotry is never something that should be tolerated, especially if religion gets it's stupid little brown nose in there. Bigotry should be 'punished', not people whom a small minority think have something 'wrong' with them...it's like Hitler with Jews as a scapegoat, exactly the same thing...*anyone* who thinks gays should die, should not exists, have something inherently wrong with them, etc, etc...are no better than Adolf Hitler was. You are insane, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you deserve to be beaten about the head and shoulders, and put underneath a rock where you belong.

How does it feel?

Both of you are idiots :headbang: ....if marriage is so sacred, and christians are all-loving...why is it that 50% of all 'marriages' nowadays end in *divorce*?? Tell me...I want to know...really

Tell me 'exactly' how shallow you people are to think that two people in more love than you've ever seen before getting married could possibly invalidate every heterosexual union? *That* makes me sick...bigotry is never something that should be tolerated, especially if religion gets it's stupid little brown nose in there. Bigotry should be 'punished', not people whom a small minority think have something 'wrong' with them...it's like Hitler with Jews as a scapegoat, exactly the same thing...*anyone* who thinks gays should die, should not exists, have something inherently wrong with them, etc, etc...are no better than Adolf Hitler was. You are insane, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you deserve to be beaten about the head and shoulders, and put underneath a rock where you belong.

How does it feel?
You *do* know those two were joking, right?

Both of you are idiots :headbang: ....if marriage is so sacred, and christians are all-loving...why is it that 50% of all 'marriages' nowadays end in *divorce*?? Tell me...I want to know...really

Tell me 'exactly' how shallow you people are to think that two people in more love than you've ever seen before getting married could possibly invalidate every heterosexual union? *That* makes me sick...bigotry is never something that should be tolerated, especially if religion gets it's stupid little brown nose in there. Bigotry should be 'punished', not people whom a small minority think have something 'wrong' with them...it's like Hitler with Jews as a scapegoat, exactly the same thing...*anyone* who thinks gays should die, should not exists, have something inherently wrong with them, etc, etc...are no better than Adolf Hitler was. You are insane, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you deserve to be beaten about the head and shoulders, and put underneath a rock where you belong.

How does it feel?
I guess you are incapable of understanding sarcasm.

I guess you are incapable of understanding sarcasm.



Not really...I've only just arrived on this forum today...so sorry...I still feel the same way, guess just not directed at them....trust me, I assumed that they were being serious because I've heard that kind of talk before...

Did somebody say "flamebait"?

'Cause that's what this thread started out as...even if unintentionally.

Not really...I've only just arrived on this forum today...so sorry...I still feel the same way, guess just not directed at them....trust me, I assumed that they were being serious because I've heard that kind of talk before...

I was trying to be ridiculous enough that no one would take me seriously, but I understand that it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Did somebody say "flamebait"?

'Cause that's what this thread started out as...even if unintentionally.
Flame bait is generally a term applied to intentional flame attracting threads
Not just any ol thread that is controversial

Flame bait is generally a term applied to intentional flame attracting threads
Not just any ol thread that is controversial
I wasn't referring to the topic...I was referring to the way in which the person initially brought it across.

Believe it or not, one can bring across your opinions without making people feel like they or someone else is being attacked. All one has to do is try.

I wasn't referring to the topic...I was referring to the way in which the person initially brought it across.

Believe it or not, one can bring across your opinions without making people feel like they or someone else is being attacked. All one has to do is try.
Sure but they would not be expressing their opinion as far as I can tell they were expressing it as they felt it … not in an intentional flame attracting way (it may have had the unintentional effect of such but that would not make it flamebait)

I've just joined this thread; have any religeous nuts used the bible as a weapn against gay marriage? Has it perhaps occcured to them that we are not fanatics? Do they realise how many Bishops in England have come out as being Gay?

I've just joined this thread; have any religeous nuts used the bible as a weapn against gay marriage? Has it perhaps occcured to them that we are not fanatics? Do they realise how many Bishops in England have come out as being Gay?

Of course they've used the Bible--afterall, its really the only thing they can use. The consitution etc. is worthless when you are talking about denying rights to people for not real reason.

Of course they've used the Bible--after all, its really the only thing they can use. The consitution etc. is worthless when you are talking about denying rights to people for not real reason.I shall quote the Bible back at the intolerant ...Letter to Titus 3:2
Subject: Christian Behaviour
They are to slander no-one, to be peaceable, considerate, exercising all graciousness toward everyone.You heard Paul.

Christians, or people of any religion that oposes homosexuality, cannot accept the fact that homosexuals are born homosexuals because that would mean that God himself made them that way. If God made them that way then that would make God a hypocrite since the bible is perceived to frown on homosexuality. It has nothing to do with any factually based evidence. It is simply the inability to accept that God would create a person in a way that the supposed interpretation of God's will frowns upon.

Wouldn't it be easier to just reconsider the interpretation?

Wouldn't it be easier to just reconsider the interpretation?

Not when it's something you've based the entire way you live your life, no...

Not when it's something you've based the entire way you live your life, no...

But they do it all the time? :confused:

Not to be rude, but IT IS A CHOICE TO BE HOMO, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE A DISEASE! Therapists make EVERYONE think that EVERYTHING is a disease these days..... :sniper:

you are obviously repressed.....or depressed.....or just bigoted. Take your pick. :D

agree with the no gay marriage thing.

Any particular reason, or do people who are different just make you cry?

But no, god just *couldn't* have done that!
Because God hates fags!

See:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/

It's on a website, it *must* be true!

Or maybe not...
:D


mhhhhhhhh :( it also says http://www.godhatessweden.com/ :mad: :(

Sweden rocks! :D :cool:

Because in America we do not consider separate programs for separate peopel to be equal. Youv'e said yourself that the homosexuals in Germany don't get the same rights.

Don't get me wrong, Iw ould be thrilled to get what they get there--but that doesn't mean I would stop fighting for anything less than full acceptance and equality because that is what all humans deserve.

That is why i told about how they took a inverted-slippery-slope approach to homosexual union here. Imho, once the conservatives stomached that there was no way around gay marriage anymore, there was a reluctant acceptance. Sort of: Lets give them a bit and see what happens. After it showed that this wasnt the end of the world and that there were several issues left out the laws became more liberal, allowing adoption of children if one of the partners was the biological parent, inheritance now equal to married heteros etc. Over time we will see near-equality, the german supreme court lately ruled 5:3 that laws should be made to guarantee equality. But some things just arent possible, mostly dealing with procreation.

Both of you are idiots :headbang: ....if marriage is so sacred, and christians are all-loving...why is it that 50% of all 'marriages' nowadays end in *divorce*?? Tell me...I want to know...really

How does it feel?


The success of the womens (so-called) "Liberation" movement.

In other words, thank the feminazis for killing the American family.


(I'll provide a sea of quotes and links to the words and programs of the most well-known of the feminazis, soon, so you can see how much they hated and still hate the family)

The success of the womens (so-called) "Liberation" movement.

In other words, thank the feminazis for killing the American family.


(I'll provide a sea of quotes and links to the words and programs of the most well-known of the feminazis, soon, so you can see how much they hated and still hate the family)
would that be any more proof then us quoting the extremists from your side of the table?

Lol, so it's the women's fault that the men are just too dumb to cope with the fact that women don't want to be stuck with kids and kitchen?

Hooray to the male intelligence... or lack of said.

Honestly, I mean... seriously... I mean... that can't be... I mean... *dies laughing*

So some people have a problem with women being successful outside of having 10 kids?

You realize we're living in the 21st century and not somewhere in the 14th anymore?

would that be any more proof then us quoting the extremists from your side of the table?


http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey46.htm (Unequal Pay For Equal Work?)

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey30.htm (Outing The Feminist "Great lie")

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey3.htm (So, is Radical Feminism a Socialist Front?)

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey1.htm (Karl Mark's Prescription for Woman's Liberation)

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey2.htm (WHEN FAMILY DISSOLUTION BECOMES THE LAW OF THE LAND)

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

That chilling commentary comes from fem-socialist Simone de Beauvoir, in her famous 1974 interview in The Saturday Review.

So what happens when the radical feminist agenda becomes the law of the land?




More quotes and sites will follow, I'll surf around for a while and get a variety of stuff. Also, let me go get some quotes out of good books I have on the topic. Be back shortly.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey46.htm (Unequal Pay For Equal Work?)

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey30.htm (Outing The Feminist "Great lie")

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey3.htm (So, is Radical Feminism a Socialist Front?)

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey1.htm (Karl Mark's Prescription for Woman's Liberation)

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey2.htm (WHEN FAMILY DISSOLUTION BECOMES THE LAW OF THE LAND)

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

That chilling commentary comes from fem-socialist Simone de Beauvoir, in her famous 1974 interview in The Saturday Review.

So what happens when the radical feminist agenda becomes the law of the land?




More quotes and sites will follow, I'll surf around for a while and get a variety of stuff. Also, let me go get some quotes out of good books I have on the topic. Be back shortly.


Lol you are using THAT as a source :-D thanks now I dont even have to argue anything you seem to be doing a good job dis-crediting your arguement by yourself

women don't want to be stuck with kids




And the species survives how?


If every woman decided having kids was "not the right thing for me" where would we all be?

Stop forcing a feminist agenda and let them make up their own minds. As it is, I've talked with a number of girls and they all have such mixed feelings on it (having kids versus career) it's obvious they feel naturally inclined to have children, but the marxist professors keep up a ceaseless propaganda barrage as to why "kids are just another way men keep women down..." etc, the same useless trite that worked so well for the USSR.

And the species survives how?


If every woman decided having kids was "not the right thing for me" where would we all be?

Stop forcing a feminist agenda and let them make up their own minds. As it is, I've talked with a number of girls and they all have such mixed feelings on it (having kids versus career) it's obvious they feel naturally inclined to have children, but the marxist professors keep up a ceaseless propaganda barrage as to why "kids are just another way men keep women down..." etc, the same useless trite that worked so well for the USSR.
and they cant want a career by themselfs without being influanced by "marxist professors"?

You do realize that we have some 6 billion people on this planet and the number is still growing?

My personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong, but I think that it should be up to the states to decide.

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage is a religious institution. Government has no right to regulate said institution. This banning of gay marriages is one form of descrimination as one cannot choose to be gay. One is born gay and one dies gay, just as one is born a white and dies white. Would anyone actually make a choice to not get married, not be able to see a partner in a hospital, not adopt kids, not have to pay an inheritance tax? The American Democracy at the moment is the American Theocracy. Instead of President we have a "Pope"

Lol you are using THAT as a source :-D thanks now I dont even have to argue anything you seem to be doing a good job dis-crediting your arguement by yourself


You still didn't respond to the lovely quote...

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

Simone de Beauvoir, 1974 interview, The Saturday Review.

You do realize that we have some 6 billion people on this planet and the number is still growing?


800 million whites and the number is shrinking daily.

5.2 billion non-whites, and they're eyeballing our lands as the places to dump their excess populations.


Yet whites are somehow still called a dominant majority?

Good thing I'm not white then... Apart from that genetically we're technically all Africans anyway.

But I find it funny how you just quote extremists who have barely any say anyway.

You still didn't respond to the lovely quote...

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

Simone de Beauvoir, 1974 interview, The Saturday Review.
I call them a statistical outlier (and if you don’t understand that … extremist) every point of view has them and are not representative of a point

(unless you agree with EVERYTHING an extremist that has the same position as you has then you know what I am talking about)

Good thing I'm not white then... Apart from that genetically we're technically all Africans anyway.

But I find it funny how you just quote extremists who have barely any say anyway.


I won't debate people who cite marxist pseduo-science for a fallacious notion of human racial equality and to support a false doctrine of egalitarian dogmatic trite that has long since been proven false, but recently accepted in the spirit of "tolerance" and "diversity".

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

Marriage is a religious institution. Government has no right to regulate said institution. This banning of gay marriages is one form of descrimination as one cannot choose to be gay. One is born gay and one dies gay, just as one is born a white and dies white. Would anyone actually make a choice to not get married, not be able to see a partner in a hospital, not adopt kids, not have to pay an inheritance tax? The American Democracy at the moment is the American Theocracy. Instead of President we have a "Pope"You might wanna inform the American government about this. They need to stop offering tax incentives to married couples. Or any of the other government benefits given to married couples. And, you know, handing out licenses to marry people.

800 million whites and the number is shrinking daily.

5.2 billion non-whites, and they're eyeballing our lands as the places to dump their excess populations.


Yet whites are somehow still called a dominant majority?
Traditionally the “dominant” majority saying is applied in the united states

Which we are

So you're an example of the "aryan master race"? I bet you wouldn't pass any decent "aryan" test anyway. *is nearly dieing of laughter here*

Though I wonder how it has been proven false.

I won't debate people who cite marxist pseduo-science for a fallacious notion of human racial equality and to support a false doctrine of egalitarian dogmatic trite that has long since been proven false, but recently accepted in the spirit of "tolerance" and "diversity".
Oh and do you plan on proving that we are not all Africans anyways (if capable) because even if you believe in the literal bible we are all decedents from Adam anyways

(which would make us all of a middle eastern decent)

Oh and do you plan on proving that we are not all Africans anyways (if capable) because even if you believe in the literal bible we are all decedents from Adam anyways

(which would make us all of a middle eastern decent)

I resent that, I'm of Chinese descent :D

Traditionally the “dominant” majority saying is applied in the united states

Which we are


A WASP conspiracy that is bent on racism, but can't even keep the borders closed? Sounds like we WASPs have so much power, eh?

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

Marriage is a religious institution. Government has no right to regulate said institution. This banning of gay marriages is one form of descrimination as one cannot choose to be gay. One is born gay and one dies gay, just as one is born a white and dies white. Would anyone actually make a choice to not get married, not be able to see a partner in a hospital, not adopt kids, not have to pay an inheritance tax? The American Democracy at the moment is the American Theocracy. Instead of President we have a "Pope"
Which religion
It was around before both Judaism and Catholicism so they didn’t invent it
Why do they think they have right to control what marriage is?

A WASP conspiracy that is bent on racism, but can't even keep the borders closed? Sounds like we WASPs have so much power, eh?
More then other people (and power is not necessarily related to "dominant" nor "majority"

I resent that, I'm of Chinese descent :D
Lol I mean ORIGIONALY before that whole “babble” thing broke us up supposedly (and there were other references to racial separation happening rather then linguistic) I don’t personally believe in such but if it were true we would have a common ancestor

Oh and do you plan on proving that we are not all Africans anyways (if capable) because even if you believe in the literal bible we are all decedents from Adam anyways

(which would make us all of a middle eastern decent)


Arthur De Gobineau
"The Inequality of Humans Races"


Charles Darwin
"Origin of the Species"
"Descent of Man"

Houston Stewart Chamberlain
"Foundations of the Nineteenth Century"


I could go on, and I will shortly, if I have the time.

Honestly, I surely hope there is no such things a common ancestor... There are people who I don't want to be related to!


Btw, those books listed are really modern science, yep... 19th century... really great sources... it's not that they knew anything about... modern genetics or anything along that line... *shakes head*

Honestly, I surely hope there is no such things a common ancestor... There are people who I don't want to be related to!


Btw, those books listed are really modern science, yep...


Soviet "Science" claimed communism was the most efficient system, and surprise surprise, nobody in the USSR objected...

Nobody in the United socialized States of America will object because they will be branded "Racist", become subject to losing their job, being arrested on trumped up charges, placed in a cellblock with 40 black males who are pumped up on "Kill whitey" propaganda by the Nation of Islam, and then the guards just turn their back while another white man is given AIDs.

... and you all wonder why so much of the world hates the US so much? Its not jealousy believe me ...

Honestly, I surely hope there is no such things a common ancestor... There are people who I don't want to be related to!


Btw, those books listed are really modern science, yep... 19th century... really great sources... it's not that they knew anything about... modern genetics or anything along that line... *shakes head*


Explain away "The Bell Curve"...


Explain away IQ studies.


http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Arthur De Gobineau
"The Inequality of Humans Races"


Charles Darwin
"Origin of the Species"
"Descent of Man"

Houston Stewart Chamberlain
"Foundations of the Nineteenth Century"


I could go on, and I will shortly, if I have the time.
Raed all but houston ... they are amusing

Raed all but houston ... they are amusing


Read Lothrop B Stoddard, "The Rising Tide of Color".

Houston is available online, I'll find a link shortly.

I've never studied genetics, but I know a few things about it, and well, if you would know one thing about history then you'd realize that those 3 guys wrote what they did from the point of view of citizens of colonial powers. French, English... well... of course they ramble about the inequality of races.

That's like... Stalin praising the USSR. Not very objective.

And I never read the Bell Curve, nor do I really give a damn about the US sytem, I'm not American, DUH.

"The Rising Tide of Color" is from the 1920s, the time when the KKK was most active, oiiii


But...

Take a look at the latest PISA study... then cry, little white man.

Explain away "The Bell Curve"...


Explain away IQ studies.


http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
The bell curve is easy to disprove (stats major) but I doubt you will understand how application in an organic environment can not follow traditional bell curve.

As for the page itself not only incorrect citing of info (the wealth portion of their info was quoted but as far as I saw no citation of where they got IQ scores from … though the page generally was a mash of info bad colors and no work cited in the bottom … horrible work all around) also if the graphs are in anyways reflective they also suffer from a non complete sample size (which means the poll is non reflective of intended populations)

Want me to keep going I can? How bout cited source reliability … incorrect graph scales…?

I believe all homophobes should be executed. They are worthless anyway. Unworthy of their existance.

I believe all homophobes should be executed. They are worthless anyway. Unworthy of their existance.
Are you phobic of homophobes if so how is your intollerance any better then yours (unless you were joking in which case it did not carry very well)

I have only read the first page of this thread, but I feel I must voice my opinion.

I think the government should allow gay marriage because it is in their constitutional right to do so. They are human beings, like us, and deserve the same treatment. And saying that they'll be happy with civil unions is idiotic because most of them are not. They want to be able to marry like the rest of humanity, so let them. Same with adoptions. They make good parents, if you just give them a chance. And 99.9% of the time, the children WILL NOT turn out gay either. Many people think that you can just "turn" gay. No body can "turn" gay. You have to born that way. Bi's choose to be bi but gays do not.

Many people I know of use the bible as a reason why they should not be married. Well, I have read the bible, as has my mom, and neither one of us found ANY reference to anything being wrong with homosexuality. NOTHING! And in addition, since our church and state are seperate (or at least they are supposed to be) what the bible says should have no influence on the goverment at all. I do agree with the person who said that the government should be in charge of the marriage license. The church should have nothing more to do with marriage other than to do the cerimony to those that want it.

My opinion has now been placed.

--Queen Stefini of Crystal Ireland

And the species survives how?


If every woman decided having kids was "not the right thing for me" where would we all be?

Stop forcing a feminist agenda and let them make up their own minds. As it is, I've talked with a number of girls and they all have such mixed feelings on it (having kids versus career) it's obvious they feel naturally inclined to have children, but the marxist professors keep up a ceaseless propaganda barrage as to why "kids are just another way men keep women down..." etc, the same useless trite that worked so well for the USSR.


If you had read what Greater Yubari said, you would see that s/he didn't say that women didn't want to have children, but that the didn't want to be the ones stuck at home with them. Instead, they expect men to take equal responsibility in the care of their children. There is nothing wrong with this--its called equality. It can work very well. Both of my parents worked--I went to daycare and spent a lot of time with my grandmother until I started school. My parents alternated being the one who was there if and when the other had to work late. It was excellent and allowed me to establish a closer relationship with my father than I would otherwise have had.