NationStates Jolt Archive

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)



ah...a different scapegoat this time...it's all women's fault for asserting themselves...nice addation to the gay marriage bashing...well done....you still didn't answer my question though...also I didn't ask about 'the american family' I asked about 'marriage', plain and simple....it's really so hard for you gay bashers to answer a simple question....lol

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

yes, again..well done *claps*

dolt

:rolleyes:

yes, again..well done *claps*

dolt

:rolleyes:
Calling me a dolt or him? LOL

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

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"


I agree with the whole Theocracy thing, but not in a good way, I think it's ridiculous....and as far as being born gay goes...look at it this way:

"Why do some people have blue eyes, and others brown?" Teala, Stargate Atlantis

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)


how about we just remember what has been scientifically 'proven', and that we are all different races....the only (major) thing we all have in common is that we have to share this planet....we have descended from each other, not a single person, or a single race....think about it, if we all descended from one race, why do we all look different?...duh!

the people of this planet have got to start thinking more about our commonalities than our differences....the differences are *always* clear, the things we all have in common usually aren't that obvious....

I don't want to get all spiritual here, but the planet that we live on is *dying* because of us...because there are too many of us to sustain what we are using...if you can't realize this, you must live under a rock...

so quit bickering about unimportant things and wake up! this subject is not just beating a dead horse..the horse is now a fine paste :P

Calling me a dolt or him? LOL


him :)

You know what I like best about VoteEarly? Every post is chock full of these breathless and wildly thrown haymakers of generalizations and concluded with: "I'll give more evidence if I have time" or "I'll have a sea of quotes, soon." And then later on all we're given vague things like "Darwin: 'Origin of the Species'" or "see 'The Bell Curve,'" respectively books that have been used to argue all sorts of things, depending on your (mis)interpretation and books that were debunked mere seconds after they hit shelves. Find a little time. Do better.

You might be God's elect, but I'd votcha right off the island.

You know, a phrase has actually been coined to explain away the "Bell Curve." It's "reasonable racism."

how about we just remember what has been scientifically 'proven', and that we are all different races....the only (major) thing we all have in common is that we have to share this planet....we have descended from each other, not a single person, or a single race....think about it, if we all descended from one race, why do we all look different?...duh!

the people of this planet have got to start thinking more about our commonalities than our differences....the differences are *always* clear, the things we all have in common usually aren't that obvious....

I don't want to get all spiritual here, but the planet that we live on is *dying* because of us...because there are too many of us to sustain what we are using...if you can't realize this, you must live under a rock...

so quit bickering about unimportant things and wake up! this subject is not just beating a dead horse..the horse is now a fine paste :P

For 1 I was looking at it from his perspective I am agnostic and do not believe in the literal Adam and Eve story

That being said descendent from different races may or may not necessarily be true (depends on which definition … race CAN be defined as just people considered in a a group)

And we have no other shared characteristics between the races (things common comment)?

(and I find it ironic that you start by arguing with my argument absurdum from his point of view and then end admonishing argument on the topic)

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


well said!

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

I believe that everyone should be given a gun, and we should all stand in circles of about 20 people, and then we should all have a go when the whistle blows, and it should stop when we're out of ammunition.

It won't necessarily rid the world of idiots, but it should reduce the noise level.

For 1 I was looking at it from his perspective I am agnostic and do not believe in the literal Adam and Eve story

That being said descendent from different races may or may not necessarily be true (depends on which definition … race CAN be defined as just people considered in a a group)

And we have no other shared characteristics between the races (things common comment)?

(and I find it ironic that you start by arguing with my argument absurdum from his point of view and then end admonishing argument on the topic)


yes, I realize that you did not believe in the Adam thing...considering you said it yourself...and I really appreciate you running over my point like a dog...

I believe that everyone should be given a gun, and we should all stand in circles of about 20 people, and then we should all have a go when the whistle blows, and it should stop when we're out of ammunition.

It won't necessarily rid the world of idiots, but it should reduce the noise level.


yeah, it might rid the world of gun nuts! :P

yes, I realize that you did not believe in the Adam thing...considering you said it yourself...and I really appreciate you running over my point like a dog...
Not quite sure of the dog reference? Like a dog?

Yay no gay marriage.

Thanks Taoist Wisdom. I kinda went on a spree but I feel strongly about this issue and I had to voice my opinion.

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.
i hella agree! we should be able to wear anything we want! (tight pants are comfortable!)

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

So, you're a leftist stalinist? I believe in freedom of speech.

Yay no gay marriage.
Thank you for your well-thought argument, your contribution enriched my life.

So, you're a leftist stalinist? I believe in freedom of speech.

Really? Why do you wish to abolish rap music then?

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".

Best sentence ever.

Best sentence ever.
You carry your name with pride, dont you?

Gay marriage is just so wrong.

Gay marriage is just so wrong.
Would you care to elaborate?

Would you care to elaborate?

it's icky. :P


gah, people who think it's wrong in any way should stop getting my goat. All differences can be settled with Super Smash Bros.

*recites calming mantra*

*recites calming mantra*
Serenity now, serenity now. Serenity now. SERENITY NOW!!!

Serenity now, serenity now. Serenity now. SERENITY NOW!!!

Grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, to change the things I cannot accept and the wisdom to know where to bury the people who push me too far.

Gay marriage is just so wrong.
That's funny, coming from Blake's 7. Did you never wonder why Avon put up with Vila all those years?

That's funny, coming from Blake's 7. Did you never wonder why Avon put up with Vila all those years?

He didnt marry him but.

He didnt marry him but.
Well, let's leave butts out of this. There was a bond between them that transcended their loyalty to Blake.

Well, let's leave butts out of this. There was a bond between them that transcended their loyalty to Blake.

Yes there was a bond, but not one of marriage.
There was also a rumour that Avon and Blake were at each other too.

Yes there was a bond, but not one of marriage.
There was also a rumour that Avon and Blake were at each other too.
So, what is marriage if not a specific bond?

So, what is marriage if not a specific bond?

Its much more than that.

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.

If you are going to punish people for who they have sex with why don't you start punishing regular guys who do fat chicks? Or hot chicks who do fat bald guys? I really don't like that, so they shouldn't be allowed to get married either... right?

Your logic can be applied all over for things that "just aren't right"

Its much more than that.
A bond between three: god, man and woman?

Is there much difference between Blake, Avon and Vila?

VoteEarly's a hoot. I laughed so hard I fell out of my chair. Are we sure this isn't Lacadaemon playing troll again?

My cat read it too. He thinks it's hilarious, but he doesn't understand why I neutered him, and not VoteEarly. :p

VoteEarly's a hoot. I laughed so hard I fell out of my chair. Are we sure this isn't Lacadaemon playing troll again?

My cat read it too. He thinks it's hilarious, but he doesn't understand why I neutered him, and not VoteEarly. :p
VoteEarly is Decisive Action.

A bond between three: god, man and woman?
Is there much difference between Blake, Avon and Vila?

Hell yes, Blake isnt God for a start, he was their leader nothing more, until Avon betrayed him anyway.
You bought God into this first, so I'll respond by saying I dont think he/she/it would approve much of a marriage between members of the same sex, on the grounds of it having no important bearing on the future of the human race, or any other race for that matter, if there is any out there, that is.

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".

VoteEarly, your above quote is nothing more than a long line of ostentatious babble that amounts to nothing more than pure and simple bigotry.

You won't debate because prejudice is easily defeated in any exchange between individuals in of any intelligence.

VoteEarly, your above quote is nothing more than a long line of ostentatious babble that amounts to nothing more than pure and simple bigotry.

You won't debate because prejudice is easily defeated in any exchange between individuals in of any intelligence.

I won't debate because you hold fast to a science, so-called, or pseudo-science as they are often called. Race is a biological reality, if you won't at least admit that, we have nothing further to discuss.

VoteEarly, your above quote is nothing more than a long line of ostentatious babble that amounts to nothing more than pure and simple bigotry.
You won't debate because prejudice is easily defeated in any exchange between individuals in of any intelligence.

But where is the debate on your own part, if all your relying on in reply, is to label them with a PC tag?

Race is a biological reality...

Bzzzt!Wrong!

I have more genetical material in common with an african black guy who shares the same bloodtype, than my neighbour who's of a different bloodtype.

There are no races in humanity. We don't have enough diversity of the genetic material between different-skin-colored people to call that different races.

Ethnicities exist, yes. Races don't. At least not regarding human beings. You want to see races, take a look at canines. A chihuahua isn't a doberman. A black guy and an asian guy are still guys. Only the color of their skin differs, their physiology doesn't.

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.

Actually the sailor suit isn't a dress up thing.

Back when young men were expected to be courting or married one way to get out of it was to join the navy. Gay men would join the navy to avoid the presures of having to fake interest in the ladies. With a higher percentage of gays in the navy the stereotype began.

In The Navy just helped reinforce it.

Ironically several members of the Village People were straight.

Bzzzt!Wrong!

I have more genetical material in common with an african black guy who shares the same bloodtype, than my neighbour who's of a different bloodtype.

There are no races in humanity. We don't have enough diversity of the genetic material between different-skin-colored people to call that different races.

Ethnicities exist, yes. Races don't. At least not regarding human beings. You want to see races, take a look at canines. A chihuahua isn't a doberman. A black guy and an asian guy are still guys. Only the color of their skin differs, their physiology doesn't.

Because you say so, wow, you've shaken my beliefs to the core!

(rolls eyes and moves along to debate with people who don't just use an, "I said so, and here is some marxist politicized evidence backing me up" form of debate)

Only the color of their skin differs, their physiology doesn't.

And their hair, eye shape, nose shape, mouth shape, bone densitys, fat content etc.
There are different races dude, which is good, diversity is interesting, bugger the melting pot, imagine the human race as one muddy colour and all the same features and heights etc, how dull.

Because you say so, wow, you've shaken my beliefs to the core!

(rolls eyes and moves along to debate with people who don't just use an, "I said so, and here is some marxist politicized evidence backing me up" form of debate)

Hmm....



....



I'm wondering if you're just dense and disrespectful, or a troll.



Probably the latter. Nevertheless, I never pass up an opportunity for debate.

Prove me wrong and I'll take back what I said. Be sure to include sources though, since I hold my knowledge from a close friend studying microbiology at the university.

But where is the debate on your own part, if all your relying on in reply, is to label them with a PC tag?

But where is the debate on your own part, if all your relying on in reply, is to label them with a PC thuggery tag?

I'd like to put Commando2, VoteEarly and Hitler Jugend on an island together and see how long it would take them to decide one of them was somehow inferior. People like that just need to feel superior and haven't got any other way but to put down everyone who's different.
But I suppose I can understand that part, because after listening to them I feel really superior.

But where is the debate on your own part, if all your relying on in reply, is to label them with a PC thuggery tag?
But where is the debate on my part, if I'm about to reply and ask where the debate on your part is?

Hmm....



....



I'm wondering if you're just dense and disrespectful, or a troll.



Probably the latter. Nevertheless, I never pass up an opportunity for debate.

Prove me wrong and I'll take back what I said. Be sure to include sources though, since I hold my knowledge from a close friend studying microbiology at the university.


Read Gobineau, "The Inequality of Human Races", I could point you to a mountain of information.

Anyway, the English professors tell us, "Racial is just a social construct" why are we even dealing with race and biology in English class? because it's a POLITICIZED education. I have a number of friends, some who are doctors, who assure me race is a biological reality. What makes either of our friends more credible? You look at the overall picture, and you ought to realize, those who deny race exists, are just feel-good marxists trying to make people think we're all the same.

And their hair, eye shape, nose shape, mouth shape, bone densitys, fat content etc.
There are different races dude, which is good, diversity is interesting, bugger the melting pot, imagine the human race as one muddy colour and all the same features and heights etc, how dull.

Hair, eye shape, nose shape, mouth shape, bone density and fat contents also vary from individuals from "the same race", as you would say.

But there are no significant changes in the overall physiology and/or morphology of their body. Saying asians are usually smaller than blacks doesn't change the fact that there are asians over 6 feet tall, and blacks no taller than 5 feet.

There is not a single chihuahua on earth who can boast being bigger than a labrador or rottweiler.

Like I said, and I hold this from someone in microbiology, we have more common genetic material with someone who shares the bloodtype, than with someone of the same ethnicity/skin color with a different bloodtype. Sure, we may not look a lot like each other, but our DNA is very similar, whereas the rottweiler's DNA differs greatly from, say, a fox terrier.

I'd like to put Commando2, VoteEarly and Hitler Jugend on an island together and see how long it would take them to decide one of them was somehow inferior. People like that just need to feel superior and haven't got any other way but to put down everyone who's different.
But I suppose I can understand that part, because after listening to them I feel really superior.


I think you're a marxist who is prejudiced. You just write-off any and all racialists as people with inferiority complexes who manifest their hatred of themselves against other people who are different.

I have no such problems, rather the problems I have are with any gov't which allows its people to become minorities in their own land. I'm sure you're the type who cried over Apartheid, but doesn't give a darn about the farm attacks. (Am I right about that?)

But where is the debate on your own part, if all your relying on in reply, is to label them with a PC thuggery tag?

Well there is no debate then is there, I mean how can you debate anyone if they wont hear your reasons that object to their beliefs, if your insulted, then the only recourse is to insult them back or ignore them at this early stage of a physical confrontation.

Ironically several members of the Village People were straight.

Actually, they all were save for the guy dressed as a Native American.

i think that gays want their own rights the same way that blacks want their own rights, the same way that latin americans want their rights, the same way that you want your rights. where's the difference?

Well there is no debate then is there, I mean how can you debate anyone if they wont hear your reasons that object to their beliefs, if your insulted, then the only recourse is to insult them back or ignore them at this early stage of a physical confrontation.

Exactly. So *everyone* needs to stop doing that, and start debating.

Anyway, the English professors tell us, "Racial is just a social construct" why are we even dealing with race and biology in English class? because it's a POLITICIZED education. I have a number of friends, some who are doctors, who assure me race is a biological reality. What makes either of our friends more credible? You look at the overall picture, and you ought to realize, those who deny race exists, are just feel-good marxists trying to make people think we're all the same.

I don't know where that thing about English professors came from. I'm a french Canadian, and we don't discuss topics of race or ethnicity in our language courses.

However, my friend is not a doctor: she studies advanced microbiology. Doctors don't take advanced classes about DNA and genetic material, about cell and micro-organisms: they see the basics and learn about human diseases(and especially how to cure them). She studies the genome in hopes of being a reasercher on genic therapy and the likes. There's a huge difference. Microbiologists designs cures and treatments; doctors apply them. It's like saying your friend the construction worker knows better than someone studying to be an architect how to build a skyscraper: highly dubious.

i think that gays want their own rights the same way that blacks want their own rights, the same way that latin americans want their rights, the same way that you want your rights. where's the difference?

They find us icky and think we make baby Jesus cry. That's the difference.

[QUOTE=Skalador]Hair, eye shape, nose shape, mouth shape, bone density and fat contents also vary from individuals from "the same race", as you would say.

Not skin colour but, maybe various shades, but nothing as extreme as say between a nigerian and a Scotsman


But there are no significant changes in the overall physiology and/or morphology of their body. Saying asians are usually smaller than blacks doesn't change the fact that there are asians over 6 feet tall, and blacks no taller than 5 feet.

These are not the typical negroid or asian type but are they.



There is not a single chihuahua on earth who can boast being bigger than a labrador or rottweiler.

There would be if you chopped the labrador or rottys legs off(joke)

Like I said, and I hold this from someone in microbiology, we have more common genetic material with someone who shares the bloodtype, than with someone of the same ethnicity/skin color with a different bloodtype.

I would like to see some proof of this.

Read Gobineau, "The Inequality of Human Races", I could point you to a mountain of information.

Anyway, the English professors tell us, "Racial is just a social construct" why are we even dealing with race and biology in English class? because it's a POLITICIZED education. I have a number of friends, some who are doctors, who assure me race is a biological reality. What makes either of our friends more credible? You look at the overall picture, and you ought to realize, those who deny race exists, are just feel-good marxists trying to make people think we're all the same.


I thing you're missing the point.

You're being asked to point out the raw genetic differeces between the ethnicities, besides skin color. Yet, somehow you bring the argument back to Marxism. That's just weird. I'll bet you're one of those guys that thinks that public transit is some kind of Marxist social engineering, and should be abolished.

Exactly. So *everyone* needs to stop doing that, and start debating.

Agreed then, no more mindless labels.

But where is the debate on my part, if I'm about to reply and ask where the debate on your part is?

How much debate would a debater debate if a debater could debate debate? :confused:

I don't know where that thing about English professors came from. I'm a french Canadian, and we don't discuss topics of race or ethnicity in our language courses.

However, my friend is not a doctor: she studies advanced microbiology. Doctors don't take advanced classes about DNA and genetic material, about cell and micro-organisms: they see the basics and learn about human diseases(and especially how to cure them). She studies the genome in hopes of being a reasercher on genic therapy and the likes. There's a huge difference. Microbiologists designs cures and treatments; doctors apply them. It's like saying your friend the construction worker knows better than someone studying to be an architect how to build a skyscraper: highly dubious.


Oh, doctors don't study advanced microbiologist?

So the geneticists who are doctors never studied anything related to biology?

I'll bet you're one of those guys that thinks that public transit is some kind of Marxist social engineering, and should be abolished.


Let them keep their public transportation, I surely won't use it, but let the peasants keep it, if they're foolish enough to use it, let them do so.

So the geneticists who are doctors never studied anything related to biology?

So are any of your doctor friends specialized in genetics? Because that would be different altogether. Although I would find rather funny to learn juts NOW that one of them is, and that you didn't call him a geneticist or microbiologist in the first place.

Because, FYI, geneticists rarely set up a clinic or perform cardiac surgery. Hence their using their specialisation to describe their job.

Let them keep their public transportation, I surely won't use it, but let the peasants keep it, if they're foolish enough to use it, let them do so.

Wow! So, you're, in a way, admitting that you're not only a homophobe, but also a racist, AND also descriminate based on social class. A full trifecta. So, tell me, do you make people hand you a geneological chart before you deign to hang out with them?

Read Gobineau, "The Inequality of Human Races", I could point you to a mountain of information.

Anyway, the English professors tell us, "Racial is just a social construct" why are we even dealing with race and biology in English class? because it's a POLITICIZED education. I have a number of friends, some who are doctors, who assure me race is a biological reality. What makes either of our friends more credible? You look at the overall picture, and you ought to realize, those who deny race exists, are just feel-good marxists trying to make people think we're all the same.

Gobineau???? You can't be for real? I had no intention of replying to you, but reading that statement is laughable. Gobineau??? You are just doing this for kicks I'm sure because quoting a 150 year old bigoted work (from a French guy none the less) is pretty funny, but doing so to try to refute sound science is really amusing.

My wife is a genetic scientist. I wish she could educate you but you are obviously far too gone to ever accept truth, or understand what true sound science really is. Or you are just someone citing obscure, hate-filled works on the internet for some sort of geeky thrill.

Oh, and before you call me a "Marxist"(which seems to be the basis for any argument you have) I'm a good old-fashioned Southen American capitalist. Sorry to disappoint you.

[QUOTE]
Not skin colour but, maybe various shades, but nothing as extreme as say between a nigerian and a Scotsman


Skin color can change in a very noticeable fashion. I've a white man turn darker than some black guys after spending a summer working as a lifeguard and spending all his time in the sun.



These are not the typical negroid or asian type but are they.


Oh, but I they are more than you might suspect. I know only three asians, and they're all taller than I am. I also happen to know there are tribes of pygmy in africa who very rarely go over 5 feet tall.




I would like to see some proof of this.
On this I'll be quite blunt: I'm lazy and it's 1:25 AM here. I can't be bothered to surf the web for links at the moment. However, even setting aside what may to your POV be a source of dubious credibility (i.e. my word without proof) the fact remains that you'll never see as much disparity between human physiologies than you can witness between different breeds of canines.

I don't go around pretending we all look the same. I recognize there are different ethnicities, among which some genetic traits are more common (ex: skin color, complexion, hair color, almond-shaped eyes, etc.). What I'm saying is that those differences are too minor for us to consider that there are more than a single human race.

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?

Both homosexuality and marriage predate the christian religion. Your pathetic views are of no value.

I think you're a marxist who is prejudiced. You just write-off any and all racialists as people with inferiority complexes who manifest their hatred of themselves against other people who are different.

I have no such problems, rather the problems I have are with any gov't which allows its people to become minorities in their own land. I'm sure you're the type who cried over Apartheid, but doesn't give a darn about the farm attacks. (Am I right about that?)

I'm not a marxist, just a sweet little southern girl. I cried about apartheid
and the attacks on white african farmers. I am prejudiced against pinheaded nazis who use outdated eugenics crap as though it was real science. And the government was wrong making a people a minority in their own land. But I guess the Indians are just out of luck.

And you're cruel to animals. My cat just died laughing.

I'm not a marxist, just a sweet little southern girl. I cried about apartheid
and the attacks on white african farmers. I am prejudiced against pinheaded nazis who use outdated eugenics crap as though it was real science. And the government was wrong making a people a minority in their own land. But I guess the Indians are just out of luck.

And you're cruel to animals. My cat just died laughing.


You don't know my thoughts on animals, I probably have more cats than you do. I'm a cat and dog fan.

Marxists just love jumping to assumptions though, don't they? (I'm starting to think you are indeed a marxist)

I'm not a Nazi, just an intellectual Good Ole Boy from the Midwest.

I take it "intellectual" must mean something entirely different in the midwest.

You don't know my thoughts on animals, I probably have more cats than you do. I'm a cat and dog fan.

Marxists just love jumping to assumptions though, don't they? (I'm starting to think you are indeed a marxist)

I'm not a Nazi, just an intellectual Good Ole Boy from the Midwest.

So do Nazis- I have ten cats, oops, make that nine. :p And only a pseudo- intellectual would cite century old books on eugenics as science. If you stop calling me a Marxist, I'll stop calling you a Nazi.

I take it "intellectual" must mean something entirely different in the midwest.


Well, an IQ that puts me in "Massively above average" (we're talking 50+ points above the American average) I think that qualifies me as smart.

Also, I'm well learned in my history and other topics of importance.

Just because I don't tow some racial equality line, doesn't mean I can't be smart.

I love how the left just writes-off their opponents as "good ole country bumpkins who don't know their sister from their wife cause it's the same woman!"

So do Nazis- I have ten cats, oops, make that nine. :p And only a pseudo- intellectual would cite century old books on eugenics as science. If you stop calling me a Marxist, I'll stop calling you a Nazi.



Sorry for calling you a Marxist, I apologize. (And please do stop calling me a Nazi)

Intellectual and smart are two different things. My IQ is 46 pts. above average. Even with my lower IQ, I do know the difference in usage between "tripe" and "trite."

Do you have more cats than I, even with my recent loss?

Intellectual and smart are two different things. My IQ is 46 pts. above average.


In Australia that would make you a complete retard, you must have a different scale over there to measure intelligence than us, if your below 88 here your considered a retard.
My IQ is 128, just above the national average(I found this out from a show on TV that had national participation in) a genius here would be in the 190 to 240 plus bracket.

Intellectual and smart are two different things. My IQ is 46 pts. above average. Even with my lower IQ, I do know the difference in usage between "tripe" and "trite."

Do you have more cats than I, even with my recent loss?


Did I say tripe or trite where the other one should have been (If I did, it's probably somewhat due to the fact I'm a bit, shall we say, under the weather). Anyway, no, I have less cats than you, if just slightly.

In Australia that would make you a complete retard, you must have a different scale over there to measure intelligence than us, if your below 88 here your considered a retard.
My IQ is 128, just above the national average(I found this out from a show on TV that had national participation in) a genius here would be in the 190 to 240 plus bracket.

Psssst...

BK said 46 ABOVE the average. Not a flat 46.

Does anybody wonder why the goverment has'nt legalized "common-law" marriage laws for homosexual couples yet? I'm not for gay marriage, but it seems common-law would end the dispute. I know this is bigger then a tax break, but sheesh.....Lets get past the petty and rip up some brass tacks already!!!

i think that gays want their own rights the same way that blacks want their own rights, the same way that latin americans want their rights, the same way that you want your rights. where's the difference?
Public perceptions.

Originally Posted by Bitchkitten
Intellectual and smart are two different things. My IQ is 46 pts. above average.
In Australia that would make you a complete retard, you must have a different scale over there to measure intelligence than us, if your below 88 here your considered a retard.
My IQ is 128, just above the national average(I found this out from a show on TV that had national participation in) a genius here would be in the 190 to 240 plus bracket.
Man! you just stated that the average IQ in Australia is 42. Quite Adamsic.

OK, lets get this settled.

The man marrying a woman is just christian law and in other cultures it differs (in one culture children can marry dogs...yes, i know...it is a bit odd)

Why would we want to marry instead of having a union? Simple, some of us may be religous and by permitting it doesn't mean that every church has to comply. If your local church doesn't want to marry two men/women than that's fine as long as they let other churches or places of worship marry gay couples.

And now for all you religous fanatics out there, so what if you think that being gay is evil, by being gay are we making you evil?(No, I'm not saying that I'm evil) Just let us be for once.

Both homosexuality and marriage predate the christian religion. Your pathetic views are of no value.

well of course seperatly they have.. but were they at any point joined so that there was homosexual marriages allowed ? i dont belive so..

Psssst...
BK said 46 ABOVE the average. Not a flat 46.

Thats a misunderstanding from the punctuation I guess, to say
'my IQ is 46 points. above average' could be interpreted as just that, whereas if she had said what you just said ..'above THE average' then it would have been slightly more clearer.
She goes on to say ' even with my lower IQ' just after she stated it was 46 points above the average, lending further confusion to the statement, I mean if she considers her IQ lower than some, and its 46 points above the average, she is either aiming very high, or the average IQ is incredibly low.

OK, lets get this settled.

The man marrying a woman is just christian law and in other cultures it differs (in one culture children can marry dogs...yes, i know...it is a bit odd)

Why would we want to marry instead of having a union? Simple, some of us may be religous and by permitting it doesn't mean that every church has to comply. If your local church doesn't want to marry two men/women than that's fine as long as they let other churches or places of worship marry gay couples.

And now for all you religous fanatics out there, so what if you think that being gay is evil, by being gay are we making you evil?(No, I'm not saying that I'm evil) Just let us be for once.


God's wrath burns strong against those who even tolerate evil in their lands. He flooded the world and spared only Noah and less than 10 others, for the sin of homosexuality. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, sparing only a handful.

If we tolerate evil in our midst, we doom entire nations.

God's wrath burns strong against those who even tolerate evil in their lands. He flooded the world and spared only Noah and less than 10 others, for the sin of homosexuality. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, sparing only a handful.

If we tolerate evil in our midst, we doom entire nations.

Are you sirous about that?

Thats a misunderstanding from the punctuation I guess, to say 'my IQ is 46 points. above average' could be interpreted as just that, whereas if she had said what you just said ..'above THE average' then it would have been slightly more clearer.

True.

However, the confusion resulted because BK used a fullstop to reinforce that pts was a contraction of points. Just one of those things a reader should go 'Huh?! Lemme read that one more time..." about.

God's wrath burns strong against those who even tolerate evil in their lands. He flooded the world and spared only Noah and less than 10 others, for the sin of homosexuality. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, sparing only a handful.

If we tolerate evil in our midst, we doom entire nations.

Prove that in the past 2000 years that's happened, and you MIGHT have a case.

Plenty of Ten Commandment violations throughout.

True.
However, the confusion resulted because BK used a fullstop to reinforce that pts was a contraction of points. Just one of those things a reader should go 'Huh?! Lemme read that one more time..." about.

Well I just wrongly assumed that you had a smaller scale to measure the national IQ on, nothing wrong with that.
I find your weather tempreture readings amusing too, sometimes.

Ah, so many things to hate about people. I've decided that to save you time, and more importantly to save my time, I will just list the varying stupidities I've got in mind at the moment and perhaps yell about them a bit.

1. Homosexuals who say "I know I wouldn't be gay, if I'd been given the choice." That just pisses me off. I'm gay, and if I weren't, I suppose I'd have to do a little hara-kiri and take out as many people as I could on the way. Yeah; I love being gay, I wouldn't have it any other way.

2. Idiots who claim homosexuality is a choice. You think it's a choice? Go stare at someone of the same gender. Do they turn you on? No? Try harder. Still no? Well, gee. That's all I had to do.

3. Pompous religious jackasses (Yes, they're a step below 'idiots') who think I should be punished for who I love. You know, the ones who think persecution is fine. I've noticed a startling amount of them happen to follow Christ's teachings (Well, you know, except for all that stuff about love. That apparently was just crap he thought up when he was drunk.). Interesting thing, though; Christians used to be persecuted a good bit worse than us (gays. Duh.), you'd think they'd have a little more understanding. Nope. Whatever. NEXT!

4. The regular pompous jackasses (Right up there with the religious ones) who think I should be punished for who I love. I'm going to greatly enjoy the day when humans run out of differences to hate each other for, and they realize that the only attribute they never bothered persecuting was heterosexuality. True, it's probably wishful thinking; as the idiots who persecute would never turn on themselves. But, the point is still there: If I had the right to marry, and you didn't, JUST because you were straight, well... I'm sure you'd be a little pissy too.

5. I hate hate hate... Hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate... HATE anyone, absolutely anyone, who still claims homosexuality is bad, wrong, sinful, immoral, incorrect, unnatural, distasteful, gross, etc. One day, though, I promise we will bury the hatchet. Or rather, I will bury the hatchet. In your head. Ah, good times.

6. No, this isn't something I hate. Just a note to anyone reading this. Yes, for your information, I am a very hateful person. I think I have every reason to be. If you don't think I do... Well, not much I can say. 'Tis the way I feel, and I suspect I won't stop until people give me a reason to. If you've ever had your rights as a human being taken away, I'd think you should sympathize a little. If you haven't, well... If your rights were revoked, I'm sure you'd be pissed too. Yeah, that was a repetition of #4. Sorry. Not much else to say. I don't want to come off as a bad guy, but I'm sure I already have. That's the price I pay.

May your innermost tupperware forever conceal the most delicious cookie dough attainable.

God's wrath burns strong against those who even tolerate evil in their lands. He flooded the world and spared only Noah and less than 10 others, for the sin of homosexuality. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, sparing only a handful.
If we tolerate evil in our midst, we doom entire nations.

Amen brother, but the Noah story is just that, some truth but alot of fiction I think.
How did he get all those animals in one boat?
The validity of Sodom and Gomorrah however wouldnt surprise me but.

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.

Thats really the issue for those who dont support gay marriage though.. the definition of marriage will change. And as of right now, marriage is the centeral point of the family unit.

If al this is just about equal "rights" then making civil unions encompass the same rights as marriage should be enough. In this case seporate but equal can apply, because there is no distribution of resources. Then the rest of the 80% of our society that belives we should not be leaglizing gay marriage dont have to worry about the definition of marriage changing and gays can have their rights...

But this simply isn't enough for some.. and what has come of it.. States just pass admendments to their consitutions outlawing it.. so what 2 states u can get married if ur gay.. and now in 11 its outlawed.. in 2 years that is expected to jump again maybe double. Is it worth it ? You cant force this kind of social change without some kind of social backing.. forcing it t hrough the courts only fuels the anger of the common people and make them react in more desperate ways.

Well I just wrongly assumed that you had a smaller scale to measure the national IQ on, nothing wrong with that.
I find your weather tempreture readings amusing too, sometimes.

Yeah, Celcius and Fahrenheit are a headache :p

Keeps things simple though.

0 degrees Celcius - freaking cold. Expect frost / ice.

20 degrees Celcius - nice and warm.

5. I hate hate hate... Hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate... HATE anyone, absolutely anyone, who still claims homosexuality is bad, wrong, sinful, immoral, incorrect, unnatural, distasteful, gross, etc. One day, though, I promise we will bury the hatchet. Or rather, I will bury the hatchet. In your head. Ah, good times.


Better that than your cock in my arse I guess. bleech

I must agree at this point, for one thing! A mariage is a constutution which exist for the children! A gaypair can't have any kids, not now anyway. A mariage should therefor be stricted for woman and man couples.

Yeah, Celcius and Fahrenheit are a headache :p
Keeps things simple though.
0 degrees Celcius - freaking cold. Expect frost / ice.
20 degrees Celcius - nice and warm.

It does, 0 to 55 degrees for us, and 32 to 104 for you.
Over here if it hits 40 degrees and we work outdoors, we dont have to by law work in it, if we dont want to.

Man! you just stated that the average IQ in Australia is 42. Quite Adamsic.

No I didnt.

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?---

First of, let me say that if you're going to start a political earthquake here by blurting out your ignorance, when so many of us here are actually homosexuals, you should open your eyes and do some research before you speak.

Let's talk about marriage. What exactly is it? In the US, it's the union between a man and a woman. In many African nations, it's the union between one man and as many women as he can afford or vice-versa. In Westcoast Native American cultures, it included the marriage of the father and son. And in Sweden, and the Netherlands, it includes the marriage of two men together, or two women together; equally recognized like heterosexual marriages.

You said "I don't believe in discrimination, but...". So are you admitting that this is in fact discrimination? I'm gay, and let me tell you it is; believe me. And since you're so ignorant on the matter, let me enlighten you. I CAN marry. There's a difference between religious marriages and civil marriages. Religious marriages mean nothing to the government, but only for the people that marry and others who choose to recognize it. What we don't have are civil marriages, which are legally protected and grant us rights that only heterosexuals can have. It shames me deeply that in a nation that felt this kind of discrimination very recently on a matter of the colour of one's skin, that the religious right is continuing their efforts to keep the US a white theocracy. If you want my opinion, by the way, I will gladly take something besides "Christian" marriage. I'll gladly opt for a Buddhist ceremony, which, contrary to Christianity, hasn't been diluted by insane uneducated greedy quixotic people.

Ok, that just made me more upset. Marriages are NOT for procreation. Perhaps in the Christian church, but look, people.

Native American royalty used to marry their sons, as I mentioned earlier. Why? Political union; keep the power in the family.

Samurais, considered by many the most respected warrior class in the world, used to marry not because of love, but, say it with me..."political union". Samurais actually believed that the best love-relationship is between a man and a man, but married the opposite sex to strengthen their political powers.

You guys need to get a grip. This world isn't only for you.

Since there are legal rights and benefits bestowed to married persons, it is right to allow same-sex couples to enjoy them too. After all, they can't all marry Liza Minelli.

To all those who believe that homosexuality is a choice, I've just a small bit of info for you, regarding my own personal experience.

I've grown believing that I was a hetero male, as guys simply didn't arouse me. I never really questioned anything about it until I was older, and never had a problem with gays. As I grew intellectually, bisexuality, as a concept, seemed so much more freeing to me then either hetero or homo. I actively tried to cultivate homosexuality within myself, with little to no success. I could get off with and enjoy sex with another male, but at best it the sexual attraction for my male partener was neutral. Since then I've thought that my sexuality was unfortunately straight, with minor exceptions.

Still, I found I was able to become more accepting of homosexuality within myself, and more aroused by males/gay porn and the like, simply by breaking mental bonds culturally established.

Recently, however, I've met a guy who I do find attractive. Quite attractive. Not as attractive as I would find a female of similar hotness, but mentally, I find him much more appealing then most anyone I've ever met. I find myself more attracted to a male then ever I thought I could be. And I'm glad for it, and have cultivated my homosexuality a bit through it.

From what I've witnessed within myself, I find that sexuality is largely an innate function, however, if vestiges are present, and cultural bonds can be broken, one can change your orientation, even if just slightly.

Being gay does have a small bit to do with choice. A small bit. However, much to my displeasure, it's mostly to do with something else, which is not choice.

Take it from someone who wishes it were choice. It isn't.

Ok, that just made me more upset. Marriages are NOT for procreation. Perhaps in the Christian church, but look, people.

Native American royalty used to marry their sons, as I mentioned earlier. Why? Political union; keep the power in the family.

Samurais, considered by many the most respected warrior class in the world, used to marry not because of love, but, say it with me..."political union". Samurais actually believed that the best love-relationship is between a man and a man, but married the opposite sex to strengthen their political powers.

You guys need to get a grip. This world isn't only for you.

when you speak of political unions your talking about the politics between families right ? not just the leadership but in most asian countries its all about the family,a nd what will most benifit the faimly.. now.. following this logic, its always been better to marry opposit sex since men and women together produce children giving the combined family of both sides a future..

of course in ancient times the best relationships were between two men... men saw themselves as superior and as such having relations with another man only seem fitting.. but when you get into "political" unions, its almost always about the FAIMLY which is why.. hertrosexual relationships always win out... because when it comes down to what is best for the family.. children is the key

SO in fact marriage IS for procreation, indirectly ! though you are right.. marriage is always about p olitical unions ... In Europe kings didn't marry princes of other kingdoms.. they married the princesses, so they could provide future heirs to the thrones.. DUH

If we tolerate evil in our midst, we doom entire nations.

That didn't stop George W. Bush's reelection.

Intellocracy, that's great. How wonderful. But let me add to that.

When I say that homosexuality is not a choice, I'm only speaking for myself. There's no possible way to know if people around me chose to be gay or not, even if they tell me. I only know that I personally did not choose, and I cannot deny that somewhere out there there are people who do choose to be homosexual. This only proves that homosexuality is a lot more complex than religious radicals want to believe. I'm glad I can have this open realization with things; a trait that's far-too-often missing in people.

To all those who believe that homosexuality is a choice, I've just a small bit of info for you, regarding my own personal experience.

I've grown believing that I was a hetero male, as guys simply didn't arouse me. I never really questioned anything about it until I was older, and never had a problem with gays. As I grew intellectually, bisexuality, as a concept, seemed so much more freeing to me then either hetero or homo. I actively tried to cultivate homosexuality within myself, with little to no success. I could get off with and enjoy sex with another male, but at best it the sexual attraction for my male partener was neutral. Since then I've thought that my sexuality was unfortunately straight, with minor exceptions.

Still, I found I was able to become more accepting of homosexuality within myself, and more aroused by males/gay porn and the like, simply by breaking mental bonds culturally established.

Recently, however, I've met a guy who I do find attractive. Quite attractive. Not as attractive as I would find a female of similar hotness, but mentally, I find him much more appealing then most anyone I've ever met. I find myself more attracted to a male then ever I thought I could be. And I'm glad for it, and have cultivated my homosexuality a bit through it.

From what I've witnessed within myself, I find that sexuality is largely an innate function, however, if vestiges are present, and cultural bonds can be broken, one can change your orientation, even if just slightly.

Being gay does have a small bit to do with choice. A small bit. However, much to my displeasure, it's mostly to do with something else, which is not choice.

Take it from someone who wishes it were choice. It isn't.

well theres a story you dont hear every day..

i might consider the idea.. but do you have any idea how damaging anal sex is to the intesine.. your doing irreversable damage.. doctors actively discourage this type of sexual activity and i whole heardly agree.. minus this there dosnt seem to be much left in homosexual activity

That didn't stop George W. Bush's reelection.

because he is the Champion of JUSTICE!

That didn't stop George W. Bush's reelection.


And God will punish the United States with another terrorist attack, 10 times worse than 911. He will punish the world with more tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, wars, plagues, famines. These are the end times we are currently in.

And God will punish the United States with another terrorist attack, 10 times worse than 911. He will punish the world with more tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, wars, plagues, famines. These are the end times we are currently in.

Bullshit.

because he is the Champion of JUSTICE!

ROFLMAO!!! That'll be the day.

Yes, up is now down, yes is now no, black is now white.

And God will punish the United States with another terrorist attack, 10 times worse than 911. He will punish the world with more tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, wars, plagues, famines. These are the end times we are currently in.

god missed his chance a long time ago... he should have got us during the black plague you dont get more wars and famines then that

And God will punish the United States with another terrorist attack, 10 times worse than 911. He will punish the world with more tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, wars, plagues, famines. These are the end times we are currently in.


*plays the sountrack from Psycho*

REET! REET! REET! :eek:

Again, the term "family" varies from one culture to the next, but as intelligent as you appear to be, I would think you would know that.

And I wasn't talking about Asain families, nor was I talking about ancient times. I was talking about a Japanese warrior class.

And going back to the definition of marriage, it seems that although everyone seems to know, there are far too many definitions. Wouldn't it save you trouble and give you more happiness to follow your own beliefs, marry in your own beliefs, and let others deal with their lives accordingly? What exactly are you trying to prove?

If anything, marriage is about stability. Whether that is politically, financially, or in a sense of "family". Don't forget, people can have babies outside of marriage.

well theres a story you dont hear every day..

i might consider the idea.. but do you have any idea how damaging anal sex is to the intesine.. your doing irreversable damage.. doctors actively discourage this type of sexual activity and i whole heardly agree.. minus this there dosnt seem to be much left in homosexual activity


Actually, anal sex is not nessicarily dangerous, if done correctly. I've done my own bit of research on that subject, I suggest you do yours.

As to your second point, you ever use your fingers/hands in sexual stimulation? Not everything is about direct penetration. So many kinds of sex, anal sex doesn't even need to be a part of it.

Nonsexual things have a big part in it as well. It's really one of the best experiences I've ever had to watch a movie on the couch and hold the aforementioned male, or be held.

Edit: Edited due to tiredness.

Are heterosexual relationships all about sexual contact? No. Are homosexual relationships all about sexual contact? No. Believe it or not, there is actually something called love, and I know many homosexuals, including myself, who don't engage in sex. Sorry do disappoint you...?

Are heterosexual relationships all about sexual contact? No. Are homosexual relationships all about sexual contact? No. Believe it or not, there is actually something called love, and I know many homosexuals, including myself, who don't engage in sex. Sorry do disappoint you...?

Come off it, thats the main reason homos fall in love with each other, to have the bum sex.

Are heterosexual relationships all about sexual contact? No. Are homosexual relationships all about sexual contact? No. Believe it or not, there is actually something called love, and I know many homosexuals, including myself, who don't engage in sex. Sorry do disappoint you...?

NONSENSE!!!

Homosexuals have 1000-3000 sex partners... at least according to Dr. Dobson. :rolleyes:

Excuse me? Have you ever interviewed enough homosexuals to get a full picture? And no, I'm not with my boyfriend for sex because, as I said, we don't have sex. He's an intelligent, loving, caring individual. I will admit, there are some serious character flaws in the gay community. Some homosexuals are only looking for sex. Then again, I know heterosexuals like that, too. So before you stake claims that you know the gay community and blame them, realize that purely sexualy-oriented people are in every walk of life.

Yeah and homosexuals are so fastidiously clean they got their own bathhouses! :D

*shivers*

well, if you're having butt sex, ya kinda wanna be clean. lol...

I don't know where that thing about English professors came from. I'm a french Canadian, and we don't discuss topics of race or ethnicity in our language courses.

However, my friend is not a doctor: she studies advanced microbiology. Doctors don't take advanced classes about DNA and genetic material, about cell and micro-organisms: they see the basics and learn about human diseases(and especially how to cure them). She studies the genome in hopes of being a reasercher on genic therapy and the likes. There's a huge difference. Microbiologists designs cures and treatments; doctors apply them. It's like saying your friend the construction worker knows better than someone studying to be an architect how to build a skyscraper: highly dubious.


Skal is quite right. I know this for a fact because I just finished Microbiology. That's not to say MDs cannot learn about it, particularly if they go into research into ID or oncology, but its not part of the standard fair of medical school.

Oh, doctors don't study advanced microbiologist?

So the geneticists who are doctors never studied anything related to biology?

You're talking about a specific case here. MOST doctors do not study genetics as in depth as you are arguing. Further, most doctors who specialize in Genetic medicine hold a dual MD/PhD.

You don't know my thoughts on animals, I probably have more cats than you do. I'm a cat and dog fan.

Marxists just love jumping to assumptions though, don't they? (I'm starting to think you are indeed a marxist)

I'm not a Nazi, just an intellectual Good Ole Boy from the Midwest.


We have "Good Old Boy's" here too. AKA sad white people desperately trying to hold on to a long gone era of racial oppression because they are not secure enough in themselves to survive without keeping someone else down.

Well, an IQ that puts me in "Massively above average" (we're talking 50+ points above the American average) I think that qualifies me as smart.

Also, I'm well learned in my history and other topics of importance.

Just because I don't tow some racial equality line, doesn't mean I can't be smart.

I love how the left just writes-off their opponents as "good ole country bumpkins who don't know their sister from their wife cause it's the same woman!"


A high IQ and book knowledge does not that guarantee that one is actually smart. You can be a genius and have absolutely no grasp on reality.

In Australia that would make you a complete retard, you must have a different scale over there to measure intelligence than us, if your below 88 here your considered a retard.
My IQ is 128, just above the national average(I found this out from a show on TV that had national participation in) a genius here would be in the 190 to 240 plus bracket.

The only retards here are people who thought she was saying her IQ was 46. Instead, its 146. You notice she said ABOVE THE AVERAGE. In the US average is generally consdered to be 100. Of course, there are question as to whether IQ is actualyl a valid assessment of intelligence or not, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Public perceptions.

Public perception was against blacks having equality as well. Further, civil rights should never be left up to a majority. If a billion people think murder is okay, that doesnt' make it okay.

well of course seperatly they have.. but were they at any point joined so that there was homosexual marriages allowed ? i dont belive so..

There's evidence for it.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

God's wrath burns strong against those who even tolerate evil in their lands. He flooded the world and spared only Noah and less than 10 others, for the sin of homosexuality. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, sparing only a handful.

If we tolerate evil in our midst, we doom entire nations.


That's a new one. When exactly did homosexuality enter into the flood story? I know it did AFTER the flood.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, look again. According to Jesus, quoting Isaiah, they were destroyed because they were inhospitable and had plenty but did not take care of the unfortunate.

Further, the whole belief that it was because of homosexuality hinges on the translation of the word "to know" which in English makes the implication carnal. However, in Hebrew, there is no carnal implication. The peopel jsut wante dto know the angels. . . literally. to know them. Not rape them.

=PracusThe only retards here are people who thought she was saying her IQ was 46.

I already explained to another poster about the misinterpretation on the grammer, no need to go off like a pork chop.

Instead, its 146. You notice she said ABOVE THE AVERAGE. In the US average is generally consdered to be 100. Of course, there are question as to whether IQ is actualyl a valid assessment of intelligence or not, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

100!

Our average is 123. You dumb fucks! :p

well theres a story you dont hear every day..

i might consider the idea.. but do you have any idea how damaging anal sex is to the intesine.. your doing irreversable damage.. doctors actively discourage this type of sexual activity and i whole heardly agree.. minus this there dosnt seem to be much left in homosexual activity


You don't know much about us do you? The VAST majority of homosexuals do not engage in anal sex on a regular basis--most of them I know (myself included) have never really tried it.

Further, homosexuality--despite common misconceptions--is not just about sex. It's about about love and emotional fulfillment--just like heterosexuality.

=PracusYou don't know much about us do you? The VAST majority of homosexuals do not engage in anal sex on a regular basis--most of them I know (myself included) have never really tried it.

Yeah sure, I bet you get drilled up the date every night :p

Okay, been gone, just finished catching up. The only reason I even mentioned my IQ was because VotesEarly said his IQ was 50+ pts. above average. Hence my reference to my lower IQ. I put a period after pts. out of habit. Not because it's the end of the sentence. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not suprised other countries might have higher average IQs. After all, Bush did get elected here.
Anal sex isn't harmful. I asked my doctor. No, I'm not saying why I might need that information. :p
And if gays had as many sexual partners as Dobson says, they'd never have time to do any interior design. :D

And if gays had as many sexual partners as Dobson says, they'd never have time to do any interior design. :D
Or style people's hair.

Most of you are obviously very clueless as to the nature of sexuality. It is not a choice, it is not a decision. It's something that is determined most likely while the unborn child's brain is still being formed within the womb. For all of you who think homosexuality is a choice: Did you choose to be straight? Could you potentially love (romantically) and be sexually attracted to someone of your own gender? Now you can understand why sexuality is not a choice, be it homo or hetero. I am a gay man. I was married for two years to the most wonderful woman ever. She and I got along perfectly, never fought, shared all the same interests and were madly in love with each other. However, there was one part of our relationship which was not there and that was the sex. I would do it to satisfy her, but I got no pleasure from it. Why? Because I was not sexually attracted to her. Now, let me ask you: If homosexuality really is a choice, why did I give up such a wonderful relationship? She and I are still very close, fortunately, and she was totally understanding of my position, despite being a devout Christian, which leaves hope for me and the other atheists out there. The moral of the story: Before you go and criticize someone and make absurd statements with no basis in fact, put yourself in their position.

Most of you are obviously very clueless as to the nature of sexuality. It is not a choice, it is not a decision. It's something that is determined most likely while the unborn child's brain is still being formed within the womb. For all of you who think homosexuality is a choice: Did you choose to be straight? Could you potentially love (romantically) and be sexually attracted to someone of your own gender? Now you can understand why sexuality is not a choice, be it homo or hetero. I am a gay man. I was married for two years to the most wonderful woman ever. She and I got along perfectly, never fought, shared all the same interests and were madly in love with each other. However, there was one part of our relationship which was not there and that was the sex. I would do it to satisfy her, but I got no pleasure from it. Why? Because I was not sexually attracted to her.

So sex is the most important part of a relationship to you then, you mentioned that you loved her, but your sexual needs overuled even that in the end.
Sex is the primary reason for gays to be together it seems.

So sex is the most important part of a relationship to you then, you mentioned that you loved her, but your sexual needs overuled even that in the end.
Sex is the primary reason for gays to be together it seems.

Yeahup and all heterosexuals 'get together' for love and to make babies but Homosexuals make baby Jesus cry! :(

So sex is the most important part of a relationship to you then, you mentioned that you loved her, but your sexual needs overuled even that in the end.
Sex is the primary reason for gays to be together it seems.


You've obviously never had an incomplete relationship before and for that, you should be grateful. Sex is not the only reason for gay people to be together, there are the same components as there are in a straight relationship: love, respect, caring, passion, etc. However, whenever a relationship is not complete, especially in an area that is rather important (and if you've ever been in a relationship that included it, you'll agree to that), you will feel the incompleteness and it will eat away at the relationship. Sex was never pleasurable for me; it was a chore. A chore that I felt like I had to do to please her. When I came out to her and told how I truly felt, I told her that what we had was fantastic and that I was willing to be celibate for her so that we could continue our charade of a straight couple and have kids eventually, etc, but she was the one, not I, who ultimately decided that it should be ended, and I agreed.

I know I've told this story on the forum, but in case somebody missed it the last three times, here it goes again.

Last boyfriend was mildly homophobic. A gay male friend came to visit me from out of state. Boyfriend asks "Has your friend ever been with a woman?"
I tell him "No." He asks "Then how can he be sure he's gay?" So I ask boyfriend if he's ever been with a guy. He's a little indignant and says "No."
So I ask him "Then how do you know you're not gay?" He looked a little shocked at first but he got the point.

Which is- it's not a choice. You figure out, usually all by yourself, who you are attracted to. It get's to the point when you just know. You can't make yourself gay or straight just by wishing it so, or by it rubbing off.

I must agree at this point, for one thing! A mariage is a constutution which exist for the children! A gaypair can't have any kids, not now anyway. A mariage should therefor be stricted for woman and man couples.

Exists for the children? Where are you getting this from? Marriage exists for many things...Some people get married for money and power (which was quite common many years ago) but no-one is banning marriage between rich people.

Sorry for bringing up this old post, i was just reading through a few pages...

I'm a straight female and I never plan to have kids. Should there be a law preventing me from getting married?

I'm a straight female and I never plan to have kids. Should there be a law preventing me from getting married?

There should be a law against your barren, hedonistic lifestyle! :D

There should be a law against your barren, self-indulgent lifestyle! :D

Hey, it's my moms fault. She told me I'd have kids just like me. :D

Some of these people are a bit wierd...wierder than the last time.
Sirously, who tries to prophesise the end of man kind due to gay couples? Compared to that person term was a nice, understanding young man...

Hey, it's my moms fault. She told me I'd have kids just like me. :D


hehehehe... me too. :D

Where's the homophobes? How are we ment to argue if we are on the same side?

Where's the homophobes? How are we ment to argue if we are on the same side?

Most of 'em believe the computer was invented by the devil. :D

Most of 'em believe the computer was invented by the devil. :D

Does anyone here actually believe the computer was created by the devil...oh, I need something to argue about...or maybe I'll just go to bed...too many options

I'm a straight female and I never plan to have kids. Should there be a law preventing me from getting married?
me too!

wow, and if there should be a law against women like us getting married, then about 4 MILLION AMERICAN MARRIAGES (including my aunt and uncle's marriages of 15 years) should be immediately ended, since that is the number of American couples who identify themselves as "childless by choice," with no intent to have children.

NB: IQ's don't mean shit.

And I have an IQ of 178, so you should believe me.

NB: IQ's don't mean shit.

And I have an IQ of 178, so you should believe me.
agreed.

FUN FACT OF THE DAY:

in 2001, a survey was taken of Americans who said they had been administered an official IQ test at some point in their adult life. of 314 people in the survey, 310 claimed to have obtained IQ scores above 160, which would mean that 310 out of 314 had "genius level" IQ. when the participants were asked to take another IQ test to confirm their past results, 24 refused. of the remaining participants, only 2 scored above 140, 3 scored below 100, and the remainder were distributed between 100-140. not one participant scored above 160.

Yeahup and all heterosexuals 'get together' for love and to make babies but Homosexuals make baby Jesus cry! :(

Probably.

You've obviously never had an incomplete relationship before and for that, you should be grateful. Sex is not the only reason for gay people to be together, there are the same components as there are in a straight relationship: love, respect, caring, passion, etc. However, whenever a relationship is not complete, especially in an area that is rather important (and if you've ever been in a relationship that included it, you'll agree to that), you will feel the incompleteness and it will eat away at the relationship. Sex was never pleasurable for me; it was a chore. A chore that I felt like I had to do to please her. When I came out to her and told how I truly felt, I told her that what we had was fantastic and that I was willing to be celibate for her so that we could continue our charade of a straight couple and have kids eventually, etc, but she was the one, not I, who ultimately decided that it should be ended, and I agreed.

You did the correct thing by telling her, and she was right to end it, but do you sometimes wonder if you had not told her and had kids, that your sexuality might have become more heterosexual because of this, dont answer if you wish.

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?
Live and let live

You did the correct thing by telling her, and she was right to end it, but do you sometimes wonder if you had not told her and had kids, that your sexuality might have become more heterosexual because of this, dont answer if you wish.
you can answer your own question:

(assuming you are straight)

if you were in a relationship with a person of the same gender, do you think you could come to be more gay as you built your life together? would you become more sexually attracted to them, and more comfortable with gay sex, if you didn't tell them you were straight and you adopted some kids together?

there may be people who can answer "yes" to this, and many more people for whom it is actually true and they just don't know it. this is because humans are probably biologically predisposed to bisexuality (as most primates are) and thus many people who believe they are "straight" or "gay" are actually somewhere along the spectrum of sexuality. however, there are also many people who are simply not comfortable having sex with somebody of the opposite gender, just as there are people who aren't comfortable having sex with somebody of the same gender. it's never a good idea to FORCE yourself to be sexual with somebody, and it is an even worse idea to build a life with somebody in the hopes that your sexuality will simply change to fit your relationship.

I'm a straight female and I never plan to have kids. Should there be a law preventing me from getting married?

Get your tubes tied then, or your ovaries removed, save your partner from going through a possible abortion scene.

Get your tubes tied then, or your ovaries removed, save your partner from going through a possible abortion scene.

This is helpful/relevant because...?

Get your tubes tied then, or your ovaries removed, save your partner from going through a possible abortion scene.
hahaha, you clearly have no idea of the ramifications of those procedures. why should the female have to endure a serious operation, or have hormone-replacement therapy for the rest of her life to compensate for removing her reproductive organs, when her partner could simply have a local anesthetic and a quick snip in an afternoon? hell, why shouldn't they just use protection and contraception, and get an abortion if those things fail? as long as the woman is up front with her partner about how she feels about having children, i see absolutely no reason why she should have to undergo any medical procedures she doesn't feel like enduring.

small piece of advice: before you refer to those opperations in a cavalier manner, speak to a medical professional and learn what the side effects and risks are. then learn about vasectomies, and compare the risks. i promise, you will laugh at yourself for ever having made the suggestion you did.

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.

That sounds like a good idea. In fact, the goverment shouldn't even call it marriage. That way, if a church doesn't want to recognize a gay union, they don't have too.

All gay people want is the ability to take time off work if thier partner gets sick, joint guardianship of any childern they have and similar things heterosexual couples take for granted. I dont think they care too much what the goverment calls it. The ones that do however, well, they are just going to have to realize its small steps, and maybe it shouldn't be called "marriage". There is middle ground here people, both sides need to understand that.

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?


agreed

Well, I'm convinced.

That sounds like a good idea. In fact, the goverment shouldn't even call it marriage. That way, if a church doesn't want to recognize a gay union, they don't have too.

All gay people want is the ability to take time off work if thier partner gets sick, joint guardianship of any childern they have and similar things heterosexual couples take for granted. I dont think they care too much what the goverment calls it. The ones that do however, well, they are just going to have to realize its small steps, and maybe it shouldn't be called "marriage". There is middle ground here people, both sides need to understand that.
as somebody who is currently in a 4-year straight relationship, i would LOVE to have a legal union that is equivalent in rights to marriage, but which is NOT called "marriage." the history of the institution of marriage is one of slavery and abuse, and i would prefer not to dirty my relationship by associating it with such a disgusting institution. the only reason i would choose to get married is because i want the LEGAL rights and protections for myself, my partner, and whatever family we might choose to build together.

many people say they feel the concept of marriage would be degraded by allowing loving gay couples to wed; personally, i feel that my union would be degraded if i used the same word for it as these bigots and homophobes use for their unions.

Well in the opinion of PRCC, homosexuality should be illegalised, with violaters shot. These disturbing influences on out society have negative influences on our birthrate and productivity.

[QUOTE=Bottle]you can answer your own question:
(assuming you are straight)

I prefer the proper meaning, heterosexual, straight is a gays word.

if you were in a relationship with a person of the same gender, do you think you could come to be more gay as you built your life together? would you become more sexually attracted to them, and more comfortable with gay sex, if you didn't tell them you were straight and you adopted some kids together?

Thats a relationship I could never enter into in the first place, so to become more 'gay' I would have to be inclined that way to begin with.
And if I was stuck on an Island for the rest of my life with a gay man, I would probably resort to masturbation, or just abstain completely.


there may be people who can answer "yes" to this, and many more people for whom it is actually true and they just don't know it. this is because humans are probably biologically predisposed to bisexuality (as most primates are)

Most people if they let carnality overrule their senses, probably could be bisexual, but I dont agree on biology determining if we are mostly bisexual, for me I would say its more a matter of morality, which isnt that big with our simian friends.

and thus many people who believe they are "straight" or "gay" are actually somewhere along the spectrum of sexuality.

Bisexual, yes but I dont believe its as a huge percent as you think, for me bisexuals are gay also.


however, there are also many people who are simply not comfortable having sex with somebody of the opposite gender, just as there are people who aren't comfortable having sex with somebody of the same gender. it's never a good idea to FORCE yourself to be sexual with somebody, and it is an even worse idea to build a life with somebody in the hopes that your sexuality will simply change to fit your relationship.

Well it could, you never know, kids are amazing creatures, I'm not trying to say this is a sure bet for every homosexual willing to be married to the opposite sex and have kids, but it could happen for some.

I prefer the proper meaning, heterosexual, straight is a gays word.

hehehehehehehehe. *wipes away tear of mirth*


Thats a relationship I could never enter into in the first place, so to become more 'gay' I would have to be inclined that way to begin with.
And if I was stuck on an Island for the rest of my life with a gay man, I would probably resort to masturbation, or just abstain completely.

if you lived in a society where the tradition was for everybody to be gay, then you probably would enter a gay relationship for many of the same reasons that gay people now enter straight relationships; you have been told your whole life that gay is right and straight is evil, and you don't want to be evil, so you do your best to do what is right. it can take years to come to terms with your own sexuality.

if you feel 100% straight that's your business.


Most people if they let carnality overrule their senses, probably could be bisexual, but I dont agree on biology determining if we are mostly bisexual, for me I would say its more a matter of morality, which isnt that big with our simian friends.

what is immoral about love, respect, companionship, and making another human being happy through mutual pleasure? why is heterosexual sex not "carnal," while homosexual sex is?

also, if you don't believe that humans are biologically predisposed to bisexuality, and introductory class in primate sexual behavior will clear that up for you :).


Bisexual, yes but I dont believe its as a huge percent as you think, for me bisexuals are gay also.

bisexuals are as straight as they are gay. sleeping with one gay person doesn't make you all-gay, just like sleeping with one straight person doesn't make you all-straight. i have been with both men and women, i am equally attracted to both men and women, and i am not "more gay" or "more straight" by any stretch of the imagination. i happen to have fallen for a man, and therefore i am in a straight relationship, but i love who he is rather than what is between his legs; if you put his consciousness in a woman's body, i would love her just as much.


Well it could, you never know, kids are amazing creatures, I'm not trying to say this is a sure bet for every homosexual willing to be married to the opposite sex and have kids, but it could happen for some.
homosexuals can have kids without being straight. there is no link between homosexuality and infertility. there is also adoption (which anti-gay-rights people always denigrate or ignore).

hahaha, you clearly have no idea of the ramifications of those procedures. why should the female have to endure a serious operation, or have hormone-replacement therapy for the rest of her life to compensate for removing her reproductive organs, when her partner could simply have a local anesthetic and a quick snip in an afternoon? hell, why shouldn't they just use protection and contraception, and get an abortion if those things fail? as long as the woman is up front with her partner about how she feels about having children, i see absolutely no reason why she should have to undergo any medical procedures she doesn't feel like enduring.
small piece of advice: before you refer to those opperations in a cavalier manner, speak to a medical professional and learn what the side effects and risks are. then learn about vasectomies, and compare the risks. i promise, you will laugh at yourself for ever having made the suggestion you did.

Alright, I was wrong I guess about the ovaries, but I cant see how the tubes being tied would be that bad, especially for a person who seems to find having children repellant for whatever reason.
A quick snip?
Whos being a lttle cavalier now.
Have you ever wondered if about the possible psycological damage and trauma on a man who can only shoot blanks?
You say she shouldnt have to go through any medical proceedures she doesnt feel like enduring in order not to reproduce, but you expect the male to do this with out question or hesitation, your beginning to come across as a sexist pig.
I may be wrong on that, but thats just how it sounds.
Another thing you brushed over lightly about this persons situation, was you bought up the abortion proceedure as if it meant almost nothing, you sounded like the life growing in her could be just flushed out like a piece of rubbish if unwanted. I think if a woman is most definite that she doesnt want kids, then it should be up to her to take responsibility, pill, making sure hes wearing a rubber etc again I was wrong it seems about the ovaries.

This is helpful/relevant because...?

because your partner may want to have a kid if you become pregnant.

I may be wrong on that, but thats just how it sounds.

Mmm. I believe what it actually meant was, a male vasectomy is a lot simpler an operation and less dangerous/major than a female one.

Dunno if this is true though.

because your partner may want to have a kid if you become pregnant.

I meant relevant to what we're actually discussing.

c´mon, let they do what they want, it is not going to change anything at all. And all this U are talking about is moralistic crap, stone age... life is too short fo us to be concerning about such details.

I meant relevant to what we're actually discussing.

It is relevant, your partner might change his mind if you got pregnant and want you have the kid, instead of an abortion, thus if you took strong measures to prevent this situation, it wouldnt have to happen.

c´mon, let they do what they want, it is not going to change anything at all. And all this U are talking about is moralistic crap, stone age... life is too short fo us to be concerning about such details.

Yeah pass the dutchie mate.

you can answer your own question:

(assuming you are straight)

if you were in a relationship with a person of the same gender, do you think you could come to be more gay as you built your life together? would you become more sexually attracted to them, and more comfortable with gay sex, if you didn't tell them you were straight and you adopted some kids together?

there may be people who can answer "yes" to this, and many more people for whom it is actually true and they just don't know it. this is because humans are probably biologically predisposed to bisexuality (as most primates are) and thus many people who believe they are "straight" or "gay" are actually somewhere along the spectrum of sexuality. however, there are also many people who are simply not comfortable having sex with somebody of the opposite gender, just as there are people who aren't comfortable having sex with somebody of the same gender. it's never a good idea to FORCE yourself to be sexual with somebody, and it is an even worse idea to build a life with somebody in the hopes that your sexuality will simply change to fit your relationship.


I could not have said it better myself. There is the possibility that I would've come to be okay with heterosexual sexual intercourse, but there is the possibility that I would not have also. And because she and I both wanted children (but not immediately) then they would've been involved, too, and it probably would've been even worse than it already was. I knew that I was gay, or at least had sexual attractions toward men, before I married her, but I was in denial about it. I told myself that if I lived like a straight man that I WOULD be a straight man and well, it failed. So trust me, if my homosexuality could've been willed away, I would've done it. On the other hand (and this is shown through research so please don't get offended anyone), women have a more "fluid" sexuality because their brains are wired more for emotional connections than physical attraction, thus, it is easier for them to move from straight to gay to bisexual to whatever, much moreso than it is for men.

Alright, I was wrong I guess about the ovaries, but I cant see how the tubes being tied would be that bad, especially for a person who seems to find having children repellant for whatever reason.
A quick snip?
Whos being a lttle cavalier now.
Have you ever wondered if about the possible psycological damage and trauma on a man who can only shoot blanks?
You say she shouldnt have to go through any medical proceedures she doesnt feel like enduring in order not to reproduce, but you expect the male to do this with out question or hesitation, your beginning to come across as a sexist pig.
I may be wrong on that, but thats just how it sounds.
Another thing you brushed over lightly about this persons situation, was you bought up the abortion proceedure as if it meant almost nothing, you sounded like the life growing in her could be just flushed out like a piece of rubbish if unwanted. I think if a woman is most definite that she doesnt want kids, then it should be up to her to take responsibility, pill, making sure hes wearing a rubber etc again I was wrong it seems about the ovaries.


A vasectomy is a MUCH simpler procedure than a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy (which should NEVER be done to prevent pregnancy). Vasectomies are done on an outpatient basis and are minimally invasive. Tubal ligations require hospital stays as well as major surgery involving general anesthesia (while a vasectomy only requires a local anesthetic). Additionally, sperm makes up about 3% of the ejaculate volume, so the man will still experience sex in the same way he is used to, only without the potential for pregnancy resulting. Also, vasectomies, when not performed with an electrocautery (which burns the tissue), can be reversed in most cases, which is still an easier procedure than actually performing or reversing a tubal ligation.

A vasectomy is a MUCH simpler procedure than a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy (which should NEVER be done to prevent pregnancy). Vasectomies are done on an outpatient basis and are minimally invasive. Tubal ligations require hospital stays as well as major surgery involving general anesthesia (while a vasectomy only requires a local anesthetic). Additionally, sperm makes up about 3% of the ejaculate volume, so the man will still experience sex in the same way he is used to, only without the potential for pregnancy resulting. Also, vasectomies, when not performed with an electrocautery (which burns the tissue), can be reversed in most cases, which is still an easier procedure than actually performing or reversing a tubal ligation.

Most cases...

Most cases...

You shouldn't have the procedure done unless you're 100% sure that you don't want children. Otherwise, condoms and birth control pills are your best course of action.

A vasectomy is a MUCH simpler procedure than a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy (which should NEVER be done to prevent pregnancy). Vasectomies are done on an outpatient basis and are minimally invasive. Tubal ligations require hospital stays as well as major surgery involving general anesthesia (while a vasectomy only requires a local anesthetic). Additionally, sperm makes up about 3% of the ejaculate volume, so the man will still experience sex in the same way he is used to, only without the potential for pregnancy resulting. Also, vasectomies, when not performed with an electrocautery (which burns the tissue), can be reversed in most cases, which is still an easier procedure than actually performing or reversing a tubal ligation.
exactly.

i mean, just use your head, Blakes: where are a woman's "tubes"? they are inside her body, underneith layers of muscle, fat, connective tissues, and even other organs. where are a man's "tubes"? under a thin layer of skin, on the outside of his body, easily accessed without disrupting other organs, blood vessels, or important tissues.

in britain they may as well get rid of hetrosexual marage anyway,with the amount of divorces it seems like a waste of time :sniper:

I could not have said it better myself. There is the possibility that I would've come to be okay with heterosexual sexual intercourse, but there is the possibility that I would not have also. And because she and I both wanted children (but not immediately) then they would've been involved, too, and it probably would've been even worse than it already was. I knew that I was gay, or at least had sexual attractions toward men, before I married her, but I was in denial about it. I told myself that if I lived like a straight man that I WOULD be a straight man and well, it failed. So trust me, if my homosexuality could've been willed away, I would've done it. On the other hand (and this is shown through research so please don't get offended anyone), women have a more "fluid" sexuality because their brains are wired more for emotional connections than physical attraction, thus, it is easier for them to move from straight to gay to bisexual to whatever, much moreso than it is for men.
okay, it's official, you are definitely terrific. everything you say makes me happy, because it proves there is one more honorable, loving, intelligent chap out there. if i were male and single i would be all over you :).

okay, it's official, you are definitely terrific. everything you say makes me happy, because it proves there is one more honorable, loving, intelligent chap out there. if i were male and single i would be all over you :).

Well, thank you. That means a lot to me. You would think I would have an easy time finding someone... heh I wish it were that easy...

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, however sickening it may be. We shouldn't take their rights away just because they're different. This is prejudice! Besides, how does their being married effect you at all! It doesn't! They are frowned upon and made fun of enough as it is! Why make it worse for them by taking rights away. Taking rights away is in no way 'nicer', it's pitiful. Think of it this way, what if hetrosexuals weren't allowed to get married and they got their rights taken away just because people think they're akward. It's just wrong.

I love it! It's so obvious who is against homosexuality on these forums and who doesn't care... And they say Christianity teaches equality and fairness and love for one's neighbours? See, I'm not for gay 'marriage' and all the gay people I have spoken to... they don't want 'marriage', in fact, they suggest that it has been the media themselves who have come up with the term 'marriage'. Many of them just want what is recognised by the state so they get the benefits straight couples have. Now, listen to this... Homosexuality is NOT CHOICE. Ask any gay person on this forum, if they chose to be gay. There used to be a mental asylum near here... my parents both worked there... and they've told me many tales of gay people who tried to kill themselves because they were depressed that they were gay. Does that sound like choice? Of course, it was at a time when there was a punishment for being gay, and others were just depressed they would never have a family. Some gay people do not like being gay, but in today's world, why should people have to be oppressed? These suggestions of punishments disgust me... They are in no way humane. In case you didn't notice... they're not like the 'niggers' and going to rape all the women. Why castrate them? In my personal view, it's a genetic disease just like Downs syndrome or Parkers disease... This thing about people choosing is bullshit.

We all know that homosexual sex won't result in children, but between consenting adults, there is no problem and if you see one, crawl back under your rock. I understand why you don't like them... but for fucks sake, let them live. Your self righteousness really does not suit you, nor did you deserve it. They exist and those who cannot help it... well, perhaps you should just shut the fuck up if you have nothing nice to say. :)

[QUOTE]





I would like to see some proof of this.

I can't quite remember who I'm replying too. I'm laughing too hard at people claiming there are drastic genetic differences between different ethnic groups that they don't count as the same race.

Regardless off skin colour, or fat content or bone structure, humans are all humans. This is because they have the same number of chromosomes and can reproduce with each other to give fertile offspring.


And as for the gay marriage thing: I agree with it. I can find no reason why homosexual couples shouldn't enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual couple. Whether the marriage is religious or not depends on the religion of the couple.

When quoted the passage from Leviticus saying homosexuality is wrong, I like to respond with this:

"However, many fundamentalist Christians like to shout that the Bible speaks out against it, so it must be a sin and therefore not to be tolerated. In general, they like to refer to Leviticus 18:22, which says, in various translations:

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

A few problems here:

1. The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late 19th century. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in any translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

2. The literal translation of the text from the original Hebrew is actually: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination."

In modern day English this could be translated as: "Men may not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination." That is, rather than *forbidding* male homosexuality, it simply restricts *where* it may occur. This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. For example, ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement. (by Orchyd Constyne)"

Get your tubes tied then, or your ovaries removed, save your partner from going through a possible abortion scene.

Actually I plan to have a tubal ligation. I am absolutely sure I don't want children. But if I did get pregnant it'd be up to no one but me rather or not I got an abortion.

Come off it, thats the main reason homos fall in love with each other, to have the bum sex.

Really? 'Cause my friend most likely won't be having any bum sex with her girlfriend. And she doesn't like the idea of it.

Some of these people are a bit wierd...wierder than the last time.
Sirously, who tries to prophesise the end of man kind due to gay couples? Compared to that person term was a nice, understanding young man...


Term remains the best debated I've ever seen oppose me on gay marriage. That says something for the lack of quality debate in this thread . . .

You did the correct thing by telling her, and she was right to end it, but do you sometimes wonder if you had not told her and had kids, that your sexuality might have become more heterosexual because of this, dont answer if you wish.


Gay people have had kids with heterosexuals. before under the guise of marriage. It doesn't change anything about their sexuality. They are still gay. They're also usually good fathers and mothers.

Get your tubes tied then, or your ovaries removed, save your partner from going through a possible abortion scene.

I think you missed the point. . . .

Well in the opinion of PRCC, homosexuality should be illegalised, with violaters shot. These disturbing influences on out society have negative influences on our birthrate and productivity.


You want to support that with stastics and scientific research? Otherwise I'll have no choice but to conclude you are an ignorant bigot making unproven claims to support his agenda of hate.

You shouldn't have the procedure done unless you're 100% sure that you don't want children. Otherwise, condoms and birth control pills are your best course of action.

No thanks, if she didnt want to have kids, I would probably just have to leave her, which is fair enough, she doesnt want kids, then Im just wasting my time being with her.
Better to leave before things get messy.

No thanks, if she didnt want to have kids, I would probably just have to leave her, which is fair enough, she doesnt want kids, then Im just wasting my time being with her.
Better to leave before things get messy.
That's a horrible way of looking at things.

exactly.
i mean, just use your head, Blakes: where are a woman's "tubes"? they are inside her body, underneith layers of muscle, fat, connective tissues, and even other organs. where are a man's "tubes"? under a thin layer of skin, on the outside of his body, easily accessed without disrupting other organs, blood vessels, or important tissues.

Im no surgeon, but medical science has come even further lately with keyhole surgery, using lasers etc, so it may be not as messy now as you think, in Australia we lead the world with advancements in medical treatment.
I myself am going in for surgery this year to get a dudominal(sp) ulcer removed by this process.

I'd rather have a tubal ligation under general anathesia than have a baby. Yuck! Besides, I'm too selfish to raise a kid. The cats are as much responsibility as I can take. :p

That's a horrible way of looking at things.
To you maybe.
But why be with someone if they dont want the same as you in this regard, because this is a very important matter to me, and Ive got every right to feel about it this way, whether you like it or not.
If say she was happy to have kids one day, but then kept putting it off and off and so on, I would just have to leave her, because life is short you know, I dont want to be 45 and see my first child staring to learn to walk, because I wouldnt be around for probably very long to see my grandchildren.
You might think I sound abit self centered here, but is it really that bad to just want to have kids mate?

I'd rather have a tubal ligation under general anathesia than have a baby. Yuck! Besides, I'm too selfish to raise a kid. The cats are as much responsibility as I can take. :p

Speaking of cats, Im currently looking after my neigbours Russian Blue, and its eating me out of house and home, is it normal for a cat to want to eat seven to eight meals a day?
It doesnt have worms either.

We all know that homosexual sex won't result in children, but between consenting adults, there is no problem and if you see one, crawl back under your rock. I understand why you don't like them... but for fucks sake, let them live. Your self righteousness really does not suit you, nor did you deserve it. They exist and those who cannot help it... well, perhaps you should just shut the fuck up if you have nothing nice to say. :)

You could follow your own advice.

Speaking of cats, Im currently looking after my neigbours Russian Blue, and its eating me out of house and home, is it normal for a cat to want to eat seven to eight meals a day?
It doesnt have worms either.

That cats going to weigh 300 pounds by time your neighbor gets back. :D
It may just being a pig. I don't know how much it eats at one time. I have one cat I really have to watch. She absolutely gorges herself at every sitting, then she barfs it up on the floor. I have to remind myself with a mantra "I love cats, I love cats, I love cats" so I don't strangle her. I can't feed them all seperately because I have so many. I run sort of an unofficial cat rescue at my house.

1. The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late 19th century. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in any translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.


The Hewbrews had no word for a homosexual? How did they identify them then, 'He/she is not hetrosexual'? :rolleyes:

That cats going to weigh 300 pounds by time your neighbor gets back. :D
It may just being a pig. I don't know how much it eats at one time. I have one cat I really have to watch. She absolutely gorges herself at every sitting, then she barfs it up on the floor. I have to remind myself with a mantra "I love cats, I love cats, I love cats" so I don't strangle her. I can't feed them all seperately because I have so many. I run sort of an unofficial cat rescue at my house.

I honestly dont think they bothered to feed it regularly, when I was handed Sash, he was pretty thin, so he could be just making hay now while the sun shines. Im going to cut him down to 5 feedings a day from now on until they get back, or Ill be handing back something they wont recognise.
He also jumps on my chest at night and butts me with his head in the face when Im asleep.

In a lot of the ancient world it wasn't an issue. It was like the difference between prefering chocolate or vanilla. The words for homo- or hetero-in a sexual connotation are very recent. As is using the word sex for anything other than gender.

Im no surgeon, but medical science has come even further lately with keyhole surgery, using lasers etc, so it may be not as messy now as you think, in Australia we lead the world with advancements in medical treatment.
I myself am going in for surgery this year to get a dudominal(sp) ulcer removed by this process.


A radical hysterectomy is still a hell of a bad procedure and is done inpatient. I'm also pretty sure that its not a laparascopic procedure. A vasectomy on the other hand, is pretty fast and basic.

<EDITORIAL ADDITION>

Now mind you, I'm not saying that you should have to go get one if your girlfriend/wife doesn't want to get pregnant. However, if a couple decides together that they don't want any/more kids, its a lot easier for a man to get a vasectomy and far less likely to affect his health that a hysterectomy would be to affect the female. Think of all the negative effects of menopause--mood swings, hot flashes, osteoporosis. Why induce that sooner than you have to?

To you maybe.
But why be with someone if they dont want the same as you in this regard, because this is a very important matter to me, and Ive got every right to feel about it this way, whether you like it or not.
If say she was happy to have kids one day, but then kept putting it off and off and so on, I would just have to leave her, because life is short you know, I dont want to be 45 and see my first child staring to learn to walk, because I wouldnt be around for probably very long to see my grandchildren.
You might think I sound abit self centered here, but is it really that bad to just want to have kids mate?


I personally have no problemw ith your view point. However, I fail to see what this line of discussion has to do with gay marriage. I imagine it probably started with you saying that gays shouldn't get married because they cannot produce kids with a partner of the same sex, and then someone asked if heterosexuals who are barren or do not want kids should be able to get married.

I'm sure that you responded to that and this long way around it had nothing to do with avoiding the point or anything.

In a lot of the ancient world it wasn't an issue. It was like the difference between prefering chocolate or vanilla. The words for homo- or hetero-in a sexual connotation are very recent. As is using the word sex for anything other than gender.

It probably wasnt an issue unless you wanted to make one of it, in other words, keep it to yourself.
The Hewbrews were against it, as were the Romans, homosexuality was condoned privately, but not publically there.
One story I read was about a Roman officer who put it on a legioneer, the Legioneer promptly gutted him with his sword, when asked why he had done this, he gave the reason, the legioneer was dismissed and let go, whilst the officers body was sent back to Rome with a message saying he had died in a skirmish.
The Greeks were pretty liberal about it, Im not sure what their stance on it was, I just saw Alexander, and those Macedonians were a pretty randy bunch.
My point here is, the Ancient world seemed to handle homosexuality alot differently than the modern world does, it may have been condoned, but I dont think it was recognised as normal either.

The government should just get out of marriage altogether

The Hewbrews had no word for a homosexual? How did they identify them then, 'He/she is not hetrosexual'? :rolleyes:


The ancient Hebrews had no concept of homosexuality--so they didn't need a word for it. Just look at how many misconceptions people today have about us--that we choose this or that we are this way because we can't get women.

It's only in modern times that people have started realizing that its NOT a choice or a disease. It's just part of the natural range of human sexuality. Basically, homosexual sex existed back then and they understood it to be an activity that many Pagans took part in. The concept of homosexuality as being about a mental and emotional and true physical attraction simply weren't present then.

The Hewbrews had no word for a homosexual? How did they identify them then, 'He/she is not hetrosexual'? :rolleyes:
believe it or not, some people don't identify others based on who they have sex with.

It probably wasnt an issue unless you wanted to make one of it, in other words, keep it to yourself.
The Hewbrews were against it, as were the Romans, homosexuality was condoned privately, but not publically there.
One story I read was about a Roman officer who put it on a legioneer, the Legioneer promptly gutted him with his sword, when asked why he had done this, he gave the reason, the legioneer was dismissed and let go, whilst the officers body was sent back to Rome with a message saying he had died in a skirmish.
The Greeks were pretty liberal about it, Im not sure what their stance on it was, I just saw Alexander, and those Macedonians were a pretty randy bunch.
My point here is, the Ancient world seemed to handle homosexuality alot differently than the modern world does, it may have been condoned, but I dont think it was recognised as normal either.

Homosexuality as we understand it today wasn't recognized at all.

I personally have no problemw ith your view point. However, I fail to see what this line of discussion has to do with gay marriage. I imagine it probably started with you saying that gays shouldn't get married because they cannot produce kids with a partner of the same sex, and then someone asked if heterosexuals who are barren or do not want kids should be able to get married.
I'm sure that you responded to that and this long way around it had nothing to do with avoiding the point or anything.

Your right on the gays raising familys, I dont agree with that, condemn me all you want, gays having civil unions in court, thats their business I guess.
This tangent was in response to a person virtually saying if a woman doesnt want any kids, then I should just be happy with that and stay with her forever, while that could happen, I think in the end I would get very frustrated, and leave her for a woman who wanted kids, lifes short you know, the months turn into years, and before you know it your too old.

Your right on the gays raising familys, I dont agree with that, condemn me all you want, gays having civil unions in court, thats their business I guess.

Ever known someone raised by gay parents? Or perhaps read about it on the APA website?


This tangent was in response to a person virtually saying if a woman doesnt want any kids, then I should just be happy with that and stay with her forever, while that could happen, I think in the end I would get very frustrated, and leave her for a woman who wanted kids, lifes short you know, the months turn into years, and before you know it your old and useless.

The tangent started before then I'm pretty sure, but it really doesn't matter. The point I'm trying to make is that not wanting to reproduce or being unable to do so shouldn't preclude heterosexuals from legal marriage--nor should it be the reason to stop homosexuals.

I've always thought this was an entirely stupid argument. I can't understand why it takes up so much political time in America (except as a red-herring :) ).

As far as I'm concerned everybody is born equal (bible i think?), everybody is equal under law (blacks, whites, hispanics whatever etc.) so why aren't homos and hetros equal under the law? Everyone should have an equal right to marriage under law.

There is no counter argument as it is the simple, logical truth.

Pracus = The ancient Hebrews had no concept of homosexuality--so they didn't need a word for it. Just look at how many misconceptions people today have about us--that we choose this or that we are this way because we can't get women.

If they had no concept of homosexuality, then it sounds like your saying the Hewbrews were all heterosexual, I find that hard to believe.
Homosexuality was in all ancient tribes, peoples etc so they must have recognised its practice somehow, unless it was forbidden to talk about.


It's only in modern times that people have started realizing that its NOT a choice or a disease. It's just part of the natural range of human sexuality.

I dont think its natural to want to have sex with someone of your own gender, whilst this is a practice that has gone on for millennia, it doesnt make it natural, Im not condemning homosexuals for it, I just dont recognise their behaviour as normal.

[QUOTE]

If they had no concept of homosexuality, then it sounds like your saying the Hewbrews were all heterosexual, I find that hard to believe.
Homosexuality was in all ancient tribes, peoples etc so they must have recognised its practice somehow, unless it was forbidden to talk about.


Or, shock horror, maybe they just didn't care enough to acknowledge it?

Or, shock horror, maybe they just didn't care enough to acknowledge it?

To not acknowledge something is to ignore it, are you advocating homosexuals were just ignored?

Brown vs. Board of Education

"Seperate does not mean equal".

Having heterosexuals have one institution (marriage), and gays another (unions) is seperate. Thus, not equal. Thus, unconstitutional. I believe it is unconstitutional to allow this continued oppression of gays, such as no marriage or no protections in many states.


:fluffle:

I don't care if they get married... what I DO care about is if they become parents... I honestly don't think the child would grow up in an adequate medium...I think it would affect his/her life a LOT...
but then... it's only my opinion

To not acknowledge something is to ignore it, are you advocating homosexuals were just ignored?

"You hear about David fooling about with Michael?"

"Yeah. Thomas and Mary finally got together too. How's the crops coming along?"

Apathy is the strongest force in the world. :p

[QUOTE=Pracus]Ever known someone raised by gay parents? Or perhaps read about it on the APA website?

Yes, well sort of, one of my best mates when I was a teenager, was bought up by a lesbian, his mother who left his dad for another woman, but she played no part in bringing him or his brother and sister up, and their relationship was an extremely rocky one, which eventually ended when he was 15.
She asked me the same kind of questions you are asking now, and I said I didnt think it was right, and she let it go at that.

The tangent started before then I'm pretty sure, but it really doesn't matter. The point I'm trying to make is that not wanting to reproduce or being unable to do so shouldn't preclude heterosexuals from legal marriage--nor should it be the reason to stop homosexuals.

I have no problem with gays seeking civil unions, but I dont agree with
church unions.

Us gay people deserve the same rights as you freaks do. We pay the same taxes, do the same jobs, and hate to break it to you, but you straight assholes are 98% of the time the people raping the youth of america :sniper: . I personally don't care if we have marriage, but don't deny us the same rights you people have. Why don't you try living the gay lifestyle for ONE WEEK and be open about it and let everyone know who you are, so that you can see how it feels to be denied the rights that you were given from birth.

If they had no concept of homosexuality, then it sounds like your saying the Hewbrews were all heterosexual, I find that hard to believe.
Homosexuality was in all ancient tribes, peoples etc so they must have recognised its practice somehow, unless it was forbidden to talk about.




I dont think its natural to want to have sex with someone of your own gender, whilst this is a practice that has gone on for millennia, it doesnt make it natural, Im not condemning homosexuals for it, I just dont recognise their behaviour as normal.
Natural and normal are not the same thing. The tsunami was natural but not normal.

You're right, technically, that homosexuality isn't normal, in that it does not happen very often.

However, it is natural in that it does occour without influence.

Not related to quoted post:
History of marriage. (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)
Changes meanings and definitions alllll the time, pre-dates christianity. Sooo...those arguments are kinda meaningless. Though I'm sure that's been argued in circles, but I didn't want to go through all the pages.

=NsendalenApathy is the strongest force in the world. :p

Its the strongest in one sense and yet the weakest in another.

Us gay people deserve the same rights as you freaks do. We pay the same taxes, do the same jobs, and hate to break it to you, but you straight assholes are 98% of the time the people raping the youth of america :sniper: . I personally don't care if we have marriage, but don't deny us the same rights you people have. Why don't you try living the gay lifestyle for ONE WEEK and be open about it and let everyone know who you are, so that you can see how it feels to be denied the rights that you were given from birth.

But you would have to be gay to want to do that in the first place, and word of advice to you, try and brush that big chip off your shoulder one day, you may become a happier person...

[QUOTE=Cannot think of a name]Natural and normal are not the same thing. The tsunami was natural but not normal.

It was normal, geological disturbances with the Earths faultlines shouldnt have to conform to your guidelines in timeframe so to speak, as to what normal is, the Earth is billions of years old, and these tsunamis happen every couple of hundred years, making them very normal.

Not related to quoted post:
History of marriage. (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)
Changes meanings and definitions alllll the time, pre-dates christianity. Sooo...those arguments are kinda meaningless. Though I'm sure that's been argued in circles, but I didn't want to go through all the pages.

Marriage rituals between men and women also predate Christianity, Christianity is not responsible for advocating hetrosexual marriage only.
In ancient times the death rate due to war, accidents famine and disease was alot higher than now per percent of the population, so naturally man and woman unions would have been more favoured to simply ensure survival if nothing else.
Same sex marriages would have probably been considered even more bizarre than they are now.

Unfortunately I can't back this up right now. I remember reading something about priests preforming same sex unions in medieval times. It wasn't sanctioned by the Catholic Church, but in early medieval times local customs often didn't follow official church doctrine. I'll see if I can find the info again.

But you would have to be gay to want to do that in the first place, and word of advice to you, try and brush that big chip off your shoulder one day, you may become a happier person...

Not necessarily. All you have to do is care about people of a different sexual orientation instead of just your own sexual orientation. Care about how other people feel for once. You can't know what it's like to be denied all those freedoms because you have them - we don't. We don't have them simply because we are attracted to an individual of the same sex. That doesn't make our quality of love any lesser. In most cases, it is stronger because we face trials and difficulties that you don't have to face. Also. If marriage is so sacred, why do so many straight couples get divorced? There are 295,455,047 people in the US. The divorce rate per year is 4.95 divorces per 1000 women. Now while that might not seem like a lot, each year, there at close to 60,000 divorces in the United States. Gay people, on the other hand, (while you may not believe this) actually stay together DESPITE all of the freedoms they should be entitled to.

[QUOTE=Gay People Worldwide]Not necessarily. All you have to do is care about people of a different sexual orientation instead of just your own sexual orientation.

Well from your last post, you dont sound too caring about heterosexual people.


Care about how other people feel for once. You can't know what it's like to be denied all those freedoms because you have them - we don't.

What freedoms do you want?
If its to be openly gay when and wherever you like, then thats an unrealistic goal to expect in todays society, if its freedom to have a family the same way a heterosexual couple, then I'll appose you on that to the death, if its civil unions, thats fine by me, but Church unions no.




We don't have them simply because we are attracted to an individual of the same sex. That doesn't make our quality of love any lesser. In most cases, it is stronger because we face trials and difficulties that you don't have to face.

We all face difficulties mate, ours are different from yours and just as hard.


Also. If marriage is so sacred, why do so many straight couples get divorced?

You can blame feminism for that one probably, you hear alot of women say they are leaving their husband because he cant commit, yet its them who are instigating more than 60 percent of the divorces, in my country anyway, it seems to be women who have more problems committing to a marriage now than men.


There are 295,455,047 people in the US. The divorce rate per year is 4.95 divorces per 1000 women. Now while that might not seem like a lot, each year, there at close to 60,000 divorces in the United States.

I would say its more than that.


Gay people, on the other hand, (while you may not believe this) actually stay together DESPITE all of the freedoms they should be entitled to.

Well kudos to you, but there are incredible social pressures on marriages now, that are causing couples to break up, you guys dont have to face.

If they had no concept of homosexuality, then it sounds like your saying the Hewbrews were all heterosexual, I find that hard to believe.
Homosexuality was in all ancient tribes, peoples etc so they must have recognised its practice somehow, unless it was forbidden to talk about.

I am saying that as a society they did not understand what homosexuality is as we do today. Hell, there wasn't a word for it in the English language until the late 1800's. This isn't a difficult concept--unless someone is deliberately avoiding it.


I dont think its natural to want to have sex with someone of your own gender, whilst this is a practice that has gone on for millennia, it doesnt make it natural, Im not condemning homosexuals for it, I just dont recognise their behaviour as normal.

Two questions:
1. What do you define as natural?
2. Why do you think its not natural? Perhaps because you don't want to do it? Whoops, there's three.

I don't care if they get married... what I DO care about is if they become parents... I honestly don't think the child would grow up in an adequate medium...I think it would affect his/her life a LOT...
but then... it's only my opinion


You're right. And the opinions of people who study this and have observed it and analyzed it, are contradictory to yours. Both the APA and the American Association of Pediatricians are in support of adoption by gays.

[QUOTE]

Yes, well sort of, one of my best mates when I was a teenager, was bought up by a lesbian, his mother who left his dad for another woman, but she played no part in bringing him or his brother and sister up, and their relationship was an extremely rocky one, which eventually ended when he was 15.
She asked me the same kind of questions you are asking now, and I said I didnt think it was right, and she let it go at that.

Well, I've actually known a couple people raised by same sex parents--and they are perfectly happy, normal, well-adjusted and all of them are straight. The APA's findings back this up.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#goodparents


I have no problem with gays seeking civil unions, but I dont agree with
church unions.

You do realize that current civil UNIONS do not grant the rights as civil MARRIAGE. And for at least the tenth time on this thread (and I know you were a witness to some of these), NO GAY PERSON WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE A CHURCH TO MARRY THEM. We just want equality under the law and equal access to basic civil rights.

Natural and normal are not the same thing. The tsunami was natural but not normal.

You're right, technically, that homosexuality isn't normal, in that it does not happen very often.

However, it is natural in that it does occour without influence.

Not related to quoted post:
History of marriage. (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)
Changes meanings and definitions alllll the time, pre-dates christianity. Sooo...those arguments are kinda meaningless. Though I'm sure that's been argued in circles, but I didn't want to go through all the pages.


I posit that homosexuality is both natural AND normal. By this line of reasoning people under 6' tall or people with blue eyes or people who are left-handed are abnormal. We are probably using two different definitions of nromal though, so its probably best to clear that up.

I am using the term normal to mean a presentation that is not due to a disease process of any form. A normal patient is not diseased, they might be different but not diseased. You seem to be using normal in a more statistical sense. Of course, everyone is abnormal at some point then.

But you would have to be gay to want to do that in the first place, and word of advice to you, try and brush that big chip off your shoulder one day, you may become a happier person...

You know what would make me a happier person? If people like you would stop worrying about what we do. Gay people deserve equality and equal rights from our nation's governments.

And for the record--if you had to live through an hour of what we go through every day, especially during our teenage years, you would have a big ass chip on your shoulder too. It continually amazes me that as many of us are happy as there are. If that which does not kill us only makes us stronger, then gay people must be pretty damned intimidating. Maybe that's why people spend so much time trying to pretend that ew aren't human and don't deserve equal protection under the law.

[QUOTE]

It was normal, geological disturbances with the Earths faultlines shouldnt have to conform to your guidelines in timeframe so to speak, as to what normal is, the Earth is billions of years old, and these tsunamis happen every couple of hundred years, making them very normal.



Marriage rituals between men and women also predate Christianity, Christianity is not responsible for advocating hetrosexual marriage only.
In ancient times the death rate due to war, accidents famine and disease was alot higher than now per percent of the population, so naturally man and woman unions would have been more favoured to simply ensure survival if nothing else.
Same sex marriages would have probably been considered even more bizarre than they are now.


A. Same Sex unions were considered perfectly normal in native american societies.

B. I still don't see how what a group of people did thousands of years ago should matter what we do today. If we blindly adhere to tradition, then blacks are slaves, women are property and no one knows how to read. That was tradition. I don't blame the people during those eras for not recognizing equality and human rights--only the people who still blindly try to do so.

Unfortunately I can't back this up right now. I remember reading something about priests preforming same sex unions in medieval times. It wasn't sanctioned by the Catholic Church, but in early medieval times local customs often didn't follow official church doctrine. I'll see if I can find the info again.

It was actually santioned at one point--or so the evidence suggests.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

Ah, so many things to hate about people. I've decided that to save you time, and more importantly to save my time, I will just list the varying stupidities I've got in mind at the moment and perhaps yell about them a bit.

1. Homosexuals who say "I know I wouldn't be gay, if I'd been given the choice." That just pisses me off. I'm gay, and if I weren't, I suppose I'd have to do a little hara-kiri and take out as many people as I could on the way. Yeah; I love being gay, I wouldn't have it any other way.

2. Idiots who claim homosexuality is a choice. You think it's a choice? Go stare at someone of the same gender. Do they turn you on? No? Try harder. Still no? Well, gee. That's all I had to do.

3. Pompous religious jackasses (Yes, they're a step below 'idiots') who think I should be punished for who I love. You know, the ones who think persecution is fine. I've noticed a startling amount of them happen to follow Christ's teachings (Well, you know, except for all that stuff about love. That apparently was just crap he thought up when he was drunk.). Interesting thing, though; Christians used to be persecuted a good bit worse than us (gays. Duh.), you'd think they'd have a little more understanding. Nope. Whatever. NEXT!

4. The regular pompous jackasses (Right up there with the religious ones) who think I should be punished for who I love. I'm going to greatly enjoy the day when humans run out of differences to hate each other for, and they realize that the only attribute they never bothered persecuting was heterosexuality. True, it's probably wishful thinking; as the idiots who persecute would never turn on themselves. But, the point is still there: If I had the right to marry, and you didn't, JUST because you were straight, well... I'm sure you'd be a little pissy too.

5. I hate hate hate... Hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate... HATE anyone, absolutely anyone, who still claims homosexuality is bad, wrong, sinful, immoral, incorrect, unnatural, distasteful, gross, etc. One day, though, I promise we will bury the hatchet. Or rather, I will bury the hatchet. In your head. Ah, good times.

6. No, this isn't something I hate. Just a note to anyone reading this. Yes, for your information, I am a very hateful person. I think I have every reason to be. If you don't think I do... Well, not much I can say. 'Tis the way I feel, and I suspect I won't stop until people give me a reason to. If you've ever had your rights as a human being taken away, I'd think you should sympathize a little. If you haven't, well... If your rights were revoked, I'm sure you'd be pissed too. Yeah, that was a repetition of #4. Sorry. Not much else to say. I don't want to come off as a bad guy, but I'm sure I already have. That's the price I pay.

May your innermost tupperware forever conceal the most delicious cookie dough attainable.

You need to see a psychologist.

[QUOTE=Pracus]I am saying that as a society they did not understand what homosexuality is as we do today. Hell, there wasn't a word for it in the English language until the late 1800's. This isn't a difficult concept--unless someone is deliberately avoiding it.


This concept of yours, seems to me to be one made up recently by gay activists, whether ancient and medieval, or Tudor or Edwardian or whatever times, their would have been a word for homosexuals/ality in the English language or any other language as there is today, it was probably surprisingly the same one/s as we have now.

Two questions:
1. What do you define as natural?
2. Why do you think its not natural? Perhaps because you don't want to do it? Whoops, there's three.

1. Nature provided sex for the main purpose of recreation, this is something homosexuals cannot do with each other, therefore any sexual activitys they have with each other are unnatural.
2. See above.
3. Definitely never.

=Pracus] Well, I've actually known a couple people raised by same sex parents--and they are perfectly happy, normal, well-adjusted and all of them are straight. The APA's findings back this up.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#goodparents

That still doesnt make it right. You can pull as many stats as you like supporting your view, but I'll never agree. So waste someone elses time on this.

You do realize that current civil UNIONS do not grant the rights as civil MARRIAGE.

Nor should they, marriage in its true sense is for men to women, be grateful with what you have, and quit while your ahead.

And for at least the tenth time on this thread (and I know you were a witness to some of these), NO GAY PERSON WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE A CHURCH TO MARRY THEM. We just want equality under the law and equal access to basic civil rights.

This sounds alittle like Nazi Germany to me just before the war, we only want this, we only want that, when what they were really after was a whole lot more.
I believe gay activists are ultimately after the fall of Christianity, but dont try for the muslims mate, those guys have you pegged out already.

=PracusYou know what would make me a happier person? If people like you would stop worrying about what we do. Gay people deserve equality and equal rights from our nation's governments.

Im not worried about what you do, as long as you dont try and step into our way of life, because its not yours, your too different to be the same as us because of your sexuality, for you to brush it over with nonsense that homos deserve the same rights as heteros regarding full marriage rights and the right to have familys, without even acknowlegeing anydrawbacks to this, makes me realise how selfish some of you people are, it may surprise you, but Ive met gays who agree.


And for the record--if you had to live through an hour of what we go through every day, especially during our teenage years, you would have a big ass chip on your shoulder too.

So what, tough, your still alive arent you, go and live in Somalia for a few months, you will know what doing it hard really is.


It continually amazes me that as many of us are happy as there are. If that which does not kill us only makes us stronger, then gay people must be pretty damned intimidating. Maybe that's why people spend so much time trying to pretend that ew aren't human and don't deserve equal protection under the law.

Look your not really that intimidating, most homosexuals Ive met, absolutely abhor violence, and good for them, and even the ones Ive met who do like to fight arent half as bad as the drunken groups of hetero males Ive run into at night unfortunately sometimes.

1. Nature provided sex for the main purpose of recreation, this is something homosexuals cannot do with each other, therefore any sexual activitys they have with each other are unnatural.
I dont necessarily agree that 'nature provided sex for the main purpose of recreation' is a true statement, however even if it were accepted as true, I dont see any reason to believe homosexuals cannot participate in recreation with each other. As for anything being unnatural, unless it isnt something that happens, it must be natural. Being natural isnt relevent so far as I can see.

Marraige is a social institution that has proven adaptive because it confers/facilitates/potentiates benefits. I dont see that such benefits would be lessened by allowing people of the same sex to marry each other, and in fact so far as I can see, at least some of the benefits that marraige confers/facilitates/potentiates, are directly transferable to homosexual couples. I can see good reasons why people of the same sex should be allowed to marry each other, as people of different sexes are allowed to marry each other, but I have yet to encounter a good reason why it should be otherwise.

It was actually santioned at one point--or so the evidence suggests.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html


I knew I'd read something about it, but it was so long ago I forgot the details. And I didn't want to rely on my memory and screw it up.

Im not worried about what you do, as long as you dont try and step into our way of life, because its not yours, your too different to be the same as us because of your sexuality, for you to brush it over with nonsense that homos deserve the same rights as heteros regarding full marriage rights and the right to have familys, without even acknowlegeing anydrawbacks to this, makes me realise how selfish some of you people are, it may surprise you, but Ive met gays who agree.
What are these drawbacks? I haven't yet seen one.
So what, tough, your still alive arent you, go and live in Somalia for a few months, you will know what doing it hard really is.
Well, guess what? Just because people in Somalia are suffering, doesn't mean we aren't.
Look your not really that intimidating, most homosexuals Ive met, absolutely abhor violence, and good for them, and even the ones Ive met who do like to fight arent half as bad as the drunken groups of hetero males Ive run into at night unfortunately sometimes.
The comment you responded to was sarcasm...

QUOTE=PracusA. Same Sex unions were considered perfectly normal in native american societies.

Condoned maybe, recognised as normal, probably not.


B. I still don't see how what a group of people did thousands of years ago should matter what we do today. If we blindly adhere to tradition, then blacks are slaves, women are property and no one knows how to read. That was tradition. I don't blame the people during those eras for not recognizing equality and human rights--only the people who still blindly try to do so.

What group?
There is slavery, alot of countrys still see women as property, and there is still alot of illiteracy around.
Also, why do you 'progressive' people always refer to slavery as a black thing, try and think outside the mantra for once. Did you know that almost two million Christians or white people were taken as slaves by the muslims during the late middle ages?

I say, and god please forgive me... Ban gay marriage and ban public displays. Before the 1970s in Canada it was illegal from homosexuals to show what they were. We should return to that. Or, at least put em all on an island. Well just the flamming homos anyways

What are these drawbacks? I haven't yet seen one.
Well, guess what? Just because people in Somalia are suffering, doesn't mean we aren't.
The comment you responded to was sarcasm...

Gee excuse me but was I talking to you about this?
No I wasnt, so get lost.

Homosexual people are human beings, are not commiting a crime and are not hurting anyone, thus they deserve equal rights under the law.

Deal with it.

That still doesnt make it right. You can pull as many stats as you like supporting your view, but I'll never agree. So waste someone elses time on this.
Ah, I like it!
So, you're saying that you don't care what the facts are?
Interesting.
Nor should they, marriage in its true sense is for men to women, be grateful with what you have, and quit while your ahead.
Be grateful for being oppressed?
That's new.
This sounds alittle like Nazi Germany to me just before the war, we only want this, we only want that, when what they were really after was a whole lot more.
I believe gay activists are ultimately after the fall of Christianity, but dont try for the muslims mate, those guys have you pegged out already.
Why must everybody be so paranoid?
Here's the shocking truth:
Homosexuals want equal rights, but that's it. We don't want to follow the examples that everyone has set in the past of going into power and opprssing everyone. We know what it's like to be hated, and I for one wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Gee excuse me but was I talking to you about this?
No I wasnt, so get lost.
Well, I'm interested in seeing these "drawbacks" too.
And remember, this does happen to be an open forum, and anybody can reply to whatever they want. If you don't want to talk to me, simply don't reply.

I say, and god please forgive me... Ban gay marriage and ban public displays. Before the 1970s in Canada it was illegal from homosexuals to show what they were. We should return to that. Or, at least put em all on an island. Well just the flamming homos anyways
Because we're all hurting people's rights so much...
:rolleyes:

Blake, I think you know he meant normal not as average, but as something that was not considered a defect. Many Native Americans also realized that being born into a male or female body didn't mean that you were that gender inside. They had a specific word for it, though I can't remember it. They were considered special and had a certain honor assigned to them. Something to do with a special spirituality connected to it.

Why must everybody be so paranoid?
Here's the shocking truth:
Homosexuals want equal rights, but that's it. We don't want to follow the examples that everyone has set in the past of going into power and opprssing everyone. We know what it's like to be hated, and I for one wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Yeah well, technically, Christians went through the same stuff some 2000+ years ago.
Remember when the Romans used to throw them to the lions?
You'd think they would know what we're talking about...

Homosexual people are human beings, are not commiting a crime and are not hurting anyone, thus they deserve equal rights under the law.

Deal with it.

Homosexuals are SICK!!! Dicks are for chicks!

Homosexuals are SICK!!! Dicks are for chicks!
Is that why you oppose gay marriage?
Or is there another reason?

Condoned maybe, recognised as normal, probably not.

'Probably not'? What do you base this on, the fact you don't want it to be like this?
"I don't want native americans to recognise same-sex unions as normal, so I'll assume (ie. pretend) they did not."?