NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
Duh.
If you want a private conversation, the forum isn't the place. TG or IM each other.

ok i aint even reading but gonna put some light to it. Conventional marriage as in the bible of every religion [ no religion in the world condones gay marriage but maybe scientology, period] Gay marriage is wrong. However we have another option then religious marriage which actually IS open to all. In B.C. where i live for instance you are with someone anyone 6 months and you get common law benefits gay straight or bi. However you can go down to city hall and file for civil union papers. This should be allowed [and is and has been allowed for some time in canada] and if it isnt that is against equal rights. However i find that pushing the church to marry gays is as wrong as saying they cant have civil unions. I actually and fully believe [ my political views are centrist ie, i dont wear ideology like a hat i make my own choices]
that religious marriage should be saved for straight people, and civil unions allowed but if a church allows gay marriage then it is fine by me.

Homosexuals are SICK!!! Dicks are for chicks!

Maybe if you put a blanket over your head we'll go away?

ok i aint even reading but gonna put some light to it. Conventional marriage as in the bible of every religion [ no religion in the world condones gay marriage but maybe scientology, period]
Wicca? Some Christian denominations support it too?
There are religions that marry homosexuals.

[ no religion in the world condones gay marriage but maybe scientology, period]

Care to prove this?

Is that why you oppose gay marriage?
Or is there another reason?

Bottom line, dick + pussy = baby dick + dick = HIV and burning in hell. Getting married = family and that goes backto dick + pussy. It wont work. And if guys were meant to be with guys then fags could make kids. But the cant!

Bottom line, dick + pussy = baby dick + dick = HIV and burning in hell. Getting married = family and that goes backto dick + pussy. It wont work. And if guys were meant to be with guys then fags could make kids. But the cant!

Translation:
"Me Ogg! Me mighty caveman! Me always right!

...

Hmmm, boobies!"

lol :)

Bottom line, dick + pussy = baby dick + dick = HIV and burning in hell. Getting married = family and that goes backto dick + pussy. It wont work. And if guys were meant to be with guys then fags could make kids. But the cant!
Dick + dick = HIV?
Guess what? AIDS isn't caused by homosexuality. It's caused by having sex with a carrier. Anybody's at risk, no matter what sexual orientation they're of.

And the bruning in hell bit? Well, until you can prove it, it doesn't hold water in an argument, really.

lol :)

Well at least you appear to have a sense of humour, that's a start.

If we actually paid attention to the REAL issues, that GAY PEOPLE ARE IN FACT HUMAN BEINGS and there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM, we wouldnt be considering this stupid idea of no gay marriage. So please, read the universal civil rights. In our constitution does it not says everyone has the right to LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? so if getting married to the one you love constitutes HAPPINESS, LIFE, AND LIBERTY why the hell would we outlaw it. think about it.

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 did reply, and I dont appreciate people taking a reply to someone else as one they think they can answer too using the same quotes, make up your own or fuck off.

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

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

Catholic Church Marries Gays! :p

I did reply, and I dont appreciate people taking a reply to someone else as one they think they can answer too using the same quotes, make up your own or fuck off.

My my, such hostility. Why is this?

it was 'boobies' that did it. I know im straight cuz a) chicks make me hard and guys dont and b) I just love boobies. They are like pillows... and they give ya something to...nevermind

ok i aint even reading but gonna put some light to it.
You are not putting any light on anything, except the fact that those who refuse to read before they post, inevitably end up repeating the already disproven arguments of those who posted before them...

Conventional marriage as in the bible of every religion [ no religion in the world condones gay marriage but maybe scientology, period]
For your assertion to be true, would not every religion first need a bible? Regardless what would this have to do with the issue?

Gay marriage is wrong.
Say's you, now for the hard part....prove it.

However we have another option then religious marriage which actually IS open to all. In B.C. where i live for instance you are with someone anyone 6 months and you get common law benefits gay straight or bi.
What common law benefits? Do you mean common law marraige benefits?
However you can go down to city hall and file for civil union papers. This should be allowed [and is and has been allowed for some time in canada] and if it isnt that is against equal rights. However i find that pushing the church to marry gays is as wrong as saying they cant have civil unions.
What have the churches got to do with it? I can currently go to a registery office, get a marraige lisence and marry someone of the opposite sex, without seeing a church, a minister or any other religious thing. Why should this suddenly change if the person I wish to marry is the same sex as me? Marraige is a social institution, not a religious institution. Churches have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.

I actually and fully believe [ my political views are centrist ie, i dont wear ideology like a hat i make my own choices]
that religious marriage should be saved for straight people, and civil unions allowed but if a church allows gay marriage then it is fine by me.
I dont see how 'the church should dictate social and government policy' is a centrist veiw, that seems frankly extreme to me.

it was 'boobies' that did it. I know im straight cuz a) chicks make me hard and guys dont and b) I just love boobies. They are like pillows... and they give ya something to...nevermind

Oh I agree, boobies are great.
But yeah, the fact that you got distracted thusly merely by reading the word 'boobies' indeed proves that you are straight.

I want pussy...I want pussy...HEY!!! I want pussy...I want pussy...HEY!!!

I did reply, and I dont appreciate people taking a reply to someone else as one they think they can answer too using the same quotes, make up your own or fuck off.
Then you came to the wrong forums. On these forum boards, replying to comments not directed towards you, is so far as I can tell, acceptable behaviour, cussing at other posters and telling them to "fuck off", I believe is against the rules. You might want to keep that in mind if you'd like to continue posting here.

"I want pussy...I want pussy...HEY!!! I want pussy...I want pussy...HEY!!! "




...Here here, brother...here here!... :D

Homo's should be allowed to marry, yes, but not in the church. Why?

Because the bible on the other hand strictly says marriage is between a man and a women. Not a man and a man.

I did reply, and I dont appreciate people taking a reply to someone else as one they think they can answer too using the same quotes, make up your own or fuck off.
What do you mean, "using the same quotes"?
I don't understand what you are angry about here.
Could you possibly clarify?

Homo's should be allowed to marry, yes, but not in the church. Why?

Which, amusingly enough, is what we've been saying all along as well.
Is there any particular reason (aside from rampant paranoia) that you (as in, the people who keep repeating this) refuse or are unable to see this?

What do you mean, "using the same quotes"?
I don't understand what you are angry about here.
Could you possibly clarify?

I'm not certain, but I think he means a combination of:
A: Replying to two people in the same post, using quotes.
B: Replying to a question aimed at someone else.

Homo's should be allowed to marry, yes, but not in the church. Why?

Because the bible on the other hand strictly says marriage is between a man and a women. Not a man and a man.

Nobody's suggesting forcing any church to marry anyone. Read at least some of the thread before you post. Some churches have no problem with it. And I could care less what the bible says about it.

I'm not certain, but I think he means a combination of:
A: Replying to two people in the same post, using quotes.
B: Replying to a question aimed at someone else.
Hmm, well I never did the first, so I can only assume he's angry at me for replying to him.

=Bitchkitten Blake, I think you know he meant normal not as average, but as something that was not considered a defect.

They thought it was defective, but also sacred for some reason, the specific word your looking for BK is 'Berdache'.

Then you came to the wrong forums. On these forum boards, replying to comments not directed towards you, is so far as I can tell, acceptable behaviour, cussing at other posters and telling them to "fuck off", I believe is against the rules. You might want to keep that in mind if you'd like to continue posting here.

I think thats up to the mods on here not you.

I think thats up to the mods on here not you.

He made a prediction/suggestion, not a threat.

Hmm, well I never did the first, so I can only assume he's angry at me for replying to him.

Look Im sorry for being too kurt before, Ive just drunk a bottle of red wine, and that gets the better of me usually, but I would appreciate it if you wouldnt throw someone elses questions at me also, as that means I may have to answer the same damn questions twice, ok?
No hard feelings.

Actually, we must legalize it, becuase we are infringing on the Anglican's freedom of religion - we are preventing them from legally recognising one of their sacraments. How would a Cathloc like it if random groups of people were legally prevented from getting baptized?

He made a prediction/suggestion, not a threat.
Oh comeon, it was a veiled threat and you know it.
Can we get off the tangent sometime?

Face facts, it's NOT normal. You can try to rationalize it with (flawed) animal examples all you like, but it IS deviant social behaviour.

Oh comeon, it was a veiled threat and you know it.
Can we get off the tangent sometime?
Well, he was informing you that the mods can and might ban or IP ban you for that, and he was also saying that he disliked your profanity.

Oh comeon, it was a veiled threat and you know it.
Can we get off the tangent sometime?

Maybe if you stop with your rampant paranoia we can.

Face facts, it's NOT normal. You can try to rationalize it with (flawed) animal examples all you like, but it IS deviant social behaviour.
Would this be flambait?

"Thinking that some sadistic/hypocritical bearded dude in in control of us all is not normal. You can try to rationalize it all with (flawed) historical evidence all you like, 'but it IS deviant social behaviour.'"

Edit - this is verbal irony to show that Nycadaemon is being a meanie. If this is flamebait, then the Nycadaemon's post is too.

Face facts, it's NOT normal. You can try to rationalize it with (flawed) animal examples all you like, but it IS deviant social behaviour.
But, what makes deviance wrong?

Face facts, it's NOT normal. You can try to rationalize it with (flawed) animal examples all you like, but it IS deviant social behaviour.

Explain.

They thought it was defective, but also sacred for some reason, the specific word your looking for BK is 'Berdache'.

Thanks. I couldn't remember it. I tend to remember generalities but forget details.

But, what makes deviance wrong?
Deviance is fun! YAAAAA!!!!

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

Would this be flambait?
I seriously doubt it.

I think thats up to the mods on here not you.
It's up to the mods to take action should they be aware of a transgression...

It's possible you know, to edit earlier comments, if on reflection you decide the voice of wine over-rode the voice of reason, after all the mods can do more than simply tell you about the rules, they can act to enforce them...

So far as I am aware consumption of red wine is not considered a defence with regards to violating the TOS ;)

As a side note, my earlier comments were not a threat (why threaten, when there is the moderation thread, actions speak louder than words). It isnt against the rules to swear, but it is against the rules to flame (which in most cases includes swearing at other posters). If you had seen posts with swearing and not read the rules, it's not unreasonable to assume that all swearing is ok, when so far as I can tell, swearing isnt ok when it is directed at another poster.

I seriously doubt it.

I was being sarcastic, and using irony to prove that that poster was being a jerk. Actually, I will [Kramer-esqu happy shake]edit[/Kramer-esqu happy shake] my post to show that.

I was being sarcastic, and using irony to prove that that poster was being a jerk. Actually, I will [Kramer-esqu happy shake]edit[/Kramer-esqu happy shake] my post to show that.
Oh, sorry about my missing your sarcasm.
I tend to do that quite a lot.

I hardly think that stating a fact is flamebait, settle down there bunky.

Whereas calling someone a jerk may be considered flaming.

lol. Bunkie. Anyways, I doubt that what you posted is flamebait, but that was a fairly lowblow, as was my modification to your post to show that religion is bunk. It can help people a lot, but when it fosters pointlessphobias it goes too far.

Face facts, it's NOT normal. You can try to rationalize it with (flawed) animal examples all you like, but it IS deviant social behaviour.

Hey, I consider getting your clit pierced as kind of deviant. But if somebody else gets it done it doesn't hurt me. (assuming they don't do it on me) I would hardly suggest outlawing it because I think it's a little freaky.

Come on people ... live and let live ... the Lord did give everyone a freewill to
do what they will. Also we aren't supposed to judge anyone, and it isn't our
place to punish gays for their sexuality. If in fact God decides that punishment
is what is called for I think he is capable of handling it all by himself.

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.
That wooshing sound was the point zipping by you. The idea is that things that can happen naturally that don't happen normally. By your dissection, you realise, you also excuse homosexuality, right? It happens regularly enough to be normal and natural. So. Where you at now?



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.
The point being that aside from being a logical falacy, the apeal to tradition is meaningless, since the definitions of marriage has been pliable since its begining.

[QUOTE=Cannot think of a name]That wooshing sound was the point zipping by you. The idea is that things that can happen naturally that don't happen normally. By your dissection, you realise, you also excuse homosexuality, right? It happens regularly enough to be normal and natural. So. Where you at now?

Normally, what gives you the right to say what you think isnt normally, did you even read what I said to you, here it is again, just because it doesnt happen much in recent history, doesnt mean it isnt a normal occurrance in the Earths history.
And Im not trying to make any excuses for homosexuality, I would call it normal for some, but not natural.
So where are you at now?



The point being that aside from being a logical falacy, the apeal to tradition is meaningless, since the definitions of marriage has been pliable since its begining.

Give some examples then, I bet you cant find many.

They may take our marriage rights, but they can never take our freedom!

Let me ask one important question. I've read the whole thread - it's jumped 13 pages since I read it last night - and as far as I can gather, no-one's asked this (I'm sorry if they have):

Blakes 7, are you saying that homosexuals have no marriage or cohabitation rights? Are you against de facto pairings? Do you think that homosexual relationships are wrong (immoral or otherwise), or do you simply have a problem with marriage?

Maybe if you stop with your rampant paranoia we can.
I dont have any paranoia it was the red wine for godsake

Helennia[/B] Blakes 7, are you saying that homosexuals have no marriage or cohabitation rights? Are you against de facto pairings? Do you think that homosexual relationships are wrong (immoral or otherwise), or do you simply have a problem with marriage?

I have no problem with homosexuals seeking civil unions as they stand, Im not a big fan of defacto pairings when kids are involved, I assume you mean two people having kids and never bothering to marry, yes I think homosexuality is wrong, but I do not hate it or feel disqust for it.
And marriage between a man and a woman is the only true acceptable form of marriage to me, as it makes the most sense.

Come on people ... live and let live ... the Lord did give everyone a freewill to do what they will. Also we aren't supposed to judge anyone, and it isn't our
place to punish gays for their sexuality. If in fact God decides that punishment
is what is called for I think he is capable of handling it all by himself.

Thanks for reminding me that I have been given the free will to accept what I like, and what I dont want too.

It's up to the mods to take action should they be aware of a transgression...
It's possible you know, to edit earlier comments, if on reflection you decide the voice of wine over-rode the voice of reason, after all the mods can do more than simply tell you about the rules, they can act to enforce them...
So far as I am aware consumption of red wine is not considered a defence with regards to violating the TOS ;)
As a side note, my earlier comments were not a threat (why threaten, when there is the moderation thread, actions speak louder than words). It isnt against the rules to swear, but it is against the rules to flame (which in most cases includes swearing at other posters). If you had seen posts with swearing and not read the rules, it's not unreasonable to assume that all swearing is ok, when so far as I can tell, swearing isnt ok when it is directed at another poster.

I honestly dont know why your even bothering to get involved P and S, it was a matter between me and Neo, and maybe the moderators and had nothing to do with you.
Nosy parkers I dont know.

Okay.
I'm not homosexual. I'm het - at least, I'm fairly sure I'm het. I've never considered otherwise. However, I will NOT be getting married. If I do decide to take the next step from de facto, I'll be getting a purely secular union, a civil union.
I support the rights of homosexuals to have civil unions. However, I do not think we can force any religious organisation to marry homosexuals. Some already do; others refuse to. Fair enough, I say. It's their religion. I do not, however, think those religious organisations have to right to call homosexuals 'unnatural' and proclaim they are going to hell. What gives them a monopoly on the soul?

Normally, what gives you the right to say what you think isnt normally, did you even read what I said to you, here it is again, just because it doesnt happen much in recent history, doesnt mean it isnt a normal occurrance in the Earths history.
And Im not trying to make any excuses for homosexuality, I would call it normal for some, but not natural.
So where are you at now?
Make your decision. Natural and normal are not the same. I got your sentence the first time, because it doesn't happen much doesn't mean it's not normal. Then homosexuality is normal.

It occours without influence/interference. It is natural. I still don't know where your arguments at, repeating my question didn't help.





Give some examples then, I bet you cant find many.
Follow the first link, lazybones.

[QUOTE]

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.



That's right. . .anything that doesn't support you must be something made up by the secret pushers of the gay agenda.

Etymology of the Word "Homosexual"

The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymous 1869 German pamphlet 143 des Preussischen Strafgesetzbuchs und seine Aufrechterhaltung als 152 des Entwurfs eines Strafgesetzbuchs für den Norddeutschen Bund ("Paragraph 143 of the Prussian Penal Code and Its Maintenance as Paragraph 152 of the Draft of a Penal Code for the North German Confederation") written by Karl Maria Kertbeny. This pamphlet advocated the repeal of Prussia's sodomy laws (Bullough et al. ed. (1996)). Kertbeny had previously used the word in a private letter written in 1868 to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Kertbeny used Homosexualität in place of Ulrichs's Urningtum; Homosexualisten instead of Urninge, and Homosexualistinnen instead of Urninden.

Poststructuralist theorist Michel Foucault (1980) cites "Westphal's famous article of 1870 on "contrary sexual sensations" as the "date of birth" of the categorization of gay men and lesbians. The term's first known use in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. The term was popularized by the 1906 Harden-Eulenburg affair.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etymology




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.

Now, if I were as desperate as you, I woudl take your above typo and run with it. However, I realize you meant procreation instead of recreation. Now I want a response to this (as I know its been brought up multiple times and you've avoided it each time).

If sex (and as an extension marriage) are provided solely for procreation, should barren women and infertile men be provented from marriage? Because you have to follow the logic to the same conclusion with your thought process--otherwise you are applying it unfairly and are, indeed, a bigot.

I honestly dont know why your even bothering to get involved P and S, it was a matter between me and Neo, and maybe the moderators and had nothing to do with you.
Nosy parkers I dont know.He's trying to be helpful.
Oh, look, it's been said. If you want a private conversation, don't take it to the forums.

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.

The only person here wasting time is you. Why are you bothering to debate if you are not open to other possibilities?



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

I suppose you would have said that to black people too back during civil rights. They should've been happy to not be slaves and shoudln't have pushed it. You really are a racist and a bigot.

Why is it you are so afraid of homosexuals having equal 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.

The fall of Christianity? PLEASE! Don't be so arrogant or self-important. The onyl thing gay activists want is equality under the government. The SECULAR government I might add. If anyone is out for the destruction of th eothers, its some psycho Christian fundies out to destroy gays.

Well, he was informing you that the mods can and might ban or IP ban you for that, and he was also saying that he disliked your profanity.
Yes but it doesnt really have anything to do with you does it, so can you go and chat to someone else please?

If sex (and as an extension marriage) are provided solely for procreation, should barren women and infertile men be provented from marriage?Oh, not just infertile women and men. We're talking sterile by choice - those with no intention of ever having children. Those who were once able to bear children, but no longer can due to age or illness - should they be forced to annul their marriages because they can no longer procreate? How about elderly people in love? Should their attachment be demoted to second-class just because they cannot reproduce?

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 here we get to the root of the problem. You are psychotic enough to believe that what gay people do affects you somehow. Pretell, how does it? How does two men getting married and getting equal rights affect you in the least?

Quick Answer: IT DOESN'T

And I won't acknowledge any drawbacks to gay marriage, because there are none. If you can point out any problems with it beyond that you are ignorant and afraid of us, I'll be willing to listen. Oh, but back it up with sociological, psychological, or anthroprological data.


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.

I'd make it longer than you would. You wouldn't last twenty minutes in my life as it has been.


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.

Why is it that straight guys always associate intimidation and fear with the power to beat the crap out of someone else? You are right--most gay guys I know abhor the use of physical violence, probably because ITS BEEN USED ON US. There ARE other ways to intimidate you know.

If we do not pose a threat to you, why all the uproar and worry about us?

He's trying to be helpful.
Oh, look, it's been said. If you want a private conversation, don't take it to the forums.

I dont want his help or yours, why the hell cant you people just stay out of it, it never involved you in any way. :rolleyes:
Please, shoo.

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.
I see. We threaten the status quo and thus Christianity.
And incidentally, why does Christianity get capitalised while the 'm' in Muslims is lower-case? Was that a genuine typo?

I dont want his help or yours, why the hell cant you people just stay out of it, it never involved you in any way. :rolleyes:
Please, shoo.Oooh, I got a nice rejection post :fluffle: Ta!

Condoned maybe, recognised as normal, probably not.

That's right insecure boy, it threatens your arguements so it must not be true. Since you are the one who called it into question, the burden of proof is on you to now prove it. Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.


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?

You are the one with a chip on your shoudler my friend. Have you ever noticed that when ever anyone makes reference to a modern travesty, you automatically refer it so something that relates to you? And how wonderful Christians must be--they were slaves, and then turned right around and took more slaves! And they thought their religion condoned it.

And yes, there is still slavery, and women are still chattel, and illiteracy is still around. But that doesnt' mean we accept it. Nor does it mean that we stop fighting it. In this country we are supposed to have a higher standard for freedom and equality. Hell, that's the way its supposed to be in the Wester n world. It's people like you who give us a bad name.

And I just want to go on record once again--I am not opposed to Christianity. My parents are Christian and I love them very much. I still have many good friends at the church I was raised in. However, I'm not going to let Christianity, which has no place in our government, be used as an excuse to deny me equality.

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


Feeling threatened now are we? Either you discuss this with all of us, or not at all.

OH wait, you aren't discussing. . . .you're just shooting your mouth off.

[QUOTE=Blakes 7]
That's right. . .anything that doesn't support you must be something made up by the secret pushers of the gay agenda.
Etymology of the Word "Homosexual"
The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymous 1869 German pamphlet 143 des Preussischen Strafgesetzbuchs und seine Aufrechterhaltung als 152 des Entwurfs eines Strafgesetzbuchs für den Norddeutschen Bund ("Paragraph 143 of the Prussian Penal Code and Its Maintenance as Paragraph 152 of the Draft of a Penal Code for the North German Confederation") written by Karl Maria Kertbeny. This pamphlet advocated the repeal of Prussia's sodomy laws (Bullough et al. ed. (1996)). Kertbeny had previously used the word in a private letter written in 1868 to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Kertbeny used Homosexualität in place of Ulrichs's Urningtum; Homosexualisten instead of Urninge, and Homosexualistinnen instead of Urninden.
Poststructuralist theorist Michel Foucault (1980) cites "Westphal's famous article of 1870 on "contrary sexual sensations" as the "date of birth" of the categorization of gay men and lesbians. The term's first known use in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. The term was popularized by the 1906 Harden-Eulenburg affair.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etymology
Now, if I were as desperate as you, I woudl take your above typo and run with it. However, I realize you meant procreation instead of recreation. Now I want a response to this (as I know its been brought up multiple times and you've avoided it each time).
If sex (and as an extension marriage) are provided solely for procreation, should barren women and infertile men be provented from marriage? Because you have to follow the logic to the same conclusion with your thought process--otherwise you are applying it unfairly and are, indeed, a bigot.

Mate you can just go to hell, I've got no time for people like you who want to label people with their pretensious insults, and then carp on that their the only ones trying to debate, this is my my last response to you, your ignored like you should be.
Im not going to waste my precious time with an unpleasant and nasty little imbecile like yourself.
Good riddance.

There is slavery, alot of countrys still see women as property, and there is still alot of illiteracy around.
There is a lot of illiteracy around. *sighs* it's that plank again.

ok i aint even reading but gonna put some light to it. Conventional marriage as in the bible of every religion [ no religion in the world condones gay marriage but maybe scientology, period] Gay marriage is wrong. However we have another option then religious marriage which actually IS open to all. In B.C. where i live for instance you are with someone anyone 6 months and you get common law benefits gay straight or bi. However you can go down to city hall and file for civil union papers. This should be allowed [and is and has been allowed for some time in canada] and if it isnt that is against equal rights. However i find that pushing the church to marry gays is as wrong as saying they cant have civil unions. I actually and fully believe [ my political views are centrist ie, i dont wear ideology like a hat i make my own choices]
that religious marriage should be saved for straight people, and civil unions allowed but if a church allows gay marriage then it is fine by me.


No gay person in this country has ever pushed the government to force chuches to recognize gay marriage. Some have pushed their indvidiual churches, but that is just part of being a church.

And further, there already ARE several churches that allow gay marriage: some branches of Methodism, Unitarian Universalist, Church of God, Universal Life Church. Their rights are being trampled on by this.

Oooh, I got a nice rejection post :fluffle: Ta!

Your welcome, now please piss off. :)

Homo's should be allowed to marry, yes, but not in the church. Why?

Because the bible on the other hand strictly says marriage is between a man and a women. Not a man and a man.


That's a separate point of debate, but not one for here. As I've said before no one is trying to force the government to force churches to grant same sex unions. All we want are the rights that come SOLELY FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

As Moff Tarkin would say: "This bickering is pointless."

Gay people aren't evil, they are human beings. As real and as important as anyone else. They are not commiting a crime, nor are they harming anyone. Why should you care? Let them have equality.

Mate you can just go to hell, I've got no time for people like you who want to label people with their pretensious insults, and then carp on that their the only ones trying to debate, this is my my last response to you, your ignored like you should be.
Im not going to waste my precious time with an unpleasant and nasty little imbecile like yourself.
Good riddance.He avoided the issue again, Pracus. Methinks politician?
Your[sic] welcome, now please piss off :)Uh - no, I like it here. Thanks for being polite though.
I thought you were going? *scratches head*
I agree - bickering's pointless. If I was getting a little sarcastic, I apologise.

Okay.
I support the rights of homosexuals to have civil unions. However, I do not think we can force any religious organisation to marry homosexuals. Some already do; others refuse to. Fair enough, I say. It's their religion. I do not, however, think those religious organisations have to right to call homosexuals 'unnatural' and proclaim they are going to hell. What gives them a monopoly on the soul?

Sweetie that fire and brimstone stuff stopped mostly in the 19th C, get with the times.
But its nice to see you arent predjudiced against Churches.

[QUOTE]

Normally, what gives you the right to say what you think isnt normally, did you even read what I said to you, here it is again, just because it doesnt happen much in recent history, doesnt mean it isnt a normal occurrance in the Earths history.
And Im not trying to make any excuses for homosexuality, I would call it normal for some, but not natural.
So where are you at now?


Normally you make sense--not logic--but sense. Here, you didn't even do that.


Give some examples then, I bet you cant find many.

Okay, here is the way the world would be if marriage had not changed (most of it in the last couple hundred years or less):

1. An adult man would be allowed to marry a 12 year-old girl.
2. Someone could be forced into a marriage arranged by their parents.
3. A person would not be allowed to marry someone of another race.
4. Men could treat their wives as property to be disposed of at will.
5. A husband would be allowed to have multiple wives.
6. A person could not marry someone of a different religion.
7. A person could not marry someone from a different economic class.
8. It would be impossible to divorce, no matter how physically or emotionally abusive your spouse.

He avoided the issue again, Pracus. Methinks politician?
Uh - no. Thanks for the invitation.
I thought you were going?

No I just dont think hes worth bothering with, just rubbish thrown out you know, and if I was a pollie, I wouldnt be on here, I wouldnt have the time.
Going? What are you on about?

Sweetie that fire and brimstone stuff stopped mostly in the 19th C, get with the times.
But its nice to see you arent predjudiced against Churches.Hey, don't call me sweetie, I get that enough already.
And no, it hasn't stopped. I know quite a few devout Christians who fervently believe it, and their pastor preaches it. Key word: mostly.

Oh, and I thought when you were saying good riddance that you were leaving for another thread... I guess not. My bad.

I dont have any paranoia it was the red wine for godsake

Oh please, you've claimed that homosexuals are out to get Christianity. That's paranoia. If you walked into a psychiatrist's office and made a claim like that s/he would have you on treatment fast enough to make your head spin.

Thanks for reminding me that I have been given the free will to accept what I like, and what I dont want too.

Actually, its to accept the things you cannot change and to change the things you cannot accept--and the wisdom to know the difference.

So help me, this really isn't intended as an insult, but an observation. You don't have the wisdom to tell the difference. You think that way two gay people do affects you somehow.

A couple of points-

Marriage is not an unchanged 2000 year old tradition. Just 50 years ago, interracial marriages were banned. Arranged marriages have been the way in much of the world, and in many places, this is changing. Anyone who says marriage is an unchanged foundation of our society is wrong. (Edit- oops, just realized this point was made earlier, and more thouroughly!)

Second, the purpose of marriage can't be to procreate. Infurtile couples get married all the time, and stay married. So do old, impotent people. There is more to life and marriage than procration. Plenty of healthy individuals get married without ever planning to have kids, too.

A question for all those who follow Leviticus- What about all the other rules in the same chapter, forbidding, for example, the consumtion of shellfish?

Okay.
I'm not homosexual. I'm het - at least, I'm fairly sure I'm het. I've never considered otherwise. However, I will NOT be getting married. If I do decide to take the next step from de facto, I'll be getting a purely secular union, a civil union.
I support the rights of homosexuals to have civil unions. However, I do not think we can force any religious organisation to marry homosexuals. Some already do; others refuse to. Fair enough, I say. It's their religion. I do not, however, think those religious organisations have to right to call homosexuals 'unnatural' and proclaim they are going to hell. What gives them a monopoly on the soul?

When has there been a gay movement to force churches to perform marriages in this country?

I agree with the rest of what you said :)

However, I do think you are blurring the line between what is a civil union and what is a civil marriage. Civil unions grant something like 20 rights. Civil marriages grant on the order of a 1000 or more. See the difference in equality?

Yes but it doesnt really have anything to do with you does it, so can you go and chat to someone else please?

This isn't a chat. It's a public discussion board. Accept the fact that other people get to read what you say and respond to it.

[QUOTE=Pracus]

Mate you can just go to hell, I've got no time for people like you who want to label people with their pretensious insults, and then carp on that their the only ones trying to debate, this is my my last response to you, your ignored like you should be.
Im not going to waste my precious time with an unpleasant and nasty little imbecile like yourself.
Good riddance.


Drat he beat me to the punch. However, it just continues to show that he wasn't interested in real debate. He was just here to throw around his words and bigotry. A stinkweed by any other name would still smell as foul.

I think he may have put you on 'ignore', Pracus. :S

I'm not saying there IS a gay movement to force churches to perform gay marriages. It's just that a large number of anti-gay people seem to think so!
And I'll have to check up on the definitions of civil union/civil marriage - I thought they were the same thing. *whoosh*
That said, if they are different, I'm changing my previous post to read civil marriages instead of civil unions. I'm for equality in the eyes of the government.

I think he may have put you on 'ignore', Pracus. :S

I'm not saying there IS a gay movement to force churches to perform gay marriages. It's just that a large number of anti-gay people seem to think so!
And I'll have to check up on the definitions of civil union/civil marriage - I thought they were the same thing. whoosh*


I wish they were the same thing, but in the US they aren't. They are vastly different. And frankly, in a way I'll be glad to be on ignore. I refuse to yield any ground, but arguing with people who won't actually listen to facts or sources (and never provide any of their own) and who just keep regurgitating the same arguements while ignoring your responses to said arguements, well they just get old.

I'm in Australia. Could explain it.
And I too am sick of hearing the same old rhetorical arguments. If someone has a logical, coherent, and rational argument, I'm more than happy to consider it.

I'm in Australia. Could explain it.
And I too am sick of hearing the same old rhetorical arguments. If someone has a logical, coherent, and rational argument, I'm more than happy to consider it.

For which side?

For which side?I've an open mind. I'll listen to both sides. IF, and I stress if, they can provide me with logical, rational, and coherent arguments. If they resort to "it's wrong, mmkay?" or "don't stomp on my rights with your big feet!" then I tune out.

No worries, Kal. :)

The logic behind the anti-gay marriage argument... (http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf/gaymarriage.pdf) unless you can come up with something better...

Damn, it MUST be late- I just deleted the wrong post! *sigh and yawn* :rolleyes:

The logic behind the anti-gay marriage argument... (http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf/gaymarriage.pdf) unless you can come up with something better...Nice. A double thumbs up here. I'll just warn people it's a pdf file.

Jim---> :fluffle: <---Steve. Deal with it. :p

Jim---> :fluffle: <---Steve. Deal with it. :p

Yeah like deal with it :rolleyes: how ninetys.

Let people form civil unions with there cats for all i care.(stolen form an issue that i voted on about marrige.)

=Helennia Hey, don't call me sweetie, I get that enough already.
And no, it hasn't stopped. I know quite a few devout Christians who fervently believe it, and their pastor preaches it. Key word: mostly.

Hey you can never get enough sweetie, I get it alot(from girls of course) dont bother me none.
But if it bothers you I'll stop.
I dont believe homos will go to hell either, well not for being homo anyway.

Oh, and I thought when you were saying good riddance that you were leaving for another thread... I guess not. My bad.

No I was just saying good riddance to that piece of shit I now have on ignore, I mean why try and debate with someone whos only interested in trying to raise your blood pressure, just a worthless flamer, nothing else.

Let people form civil unions with there cats for all i care.(stolen form an issue that i voted on about marrige.)

So if someone, say your neighbor was having an unnatural relationship with their cat, it wouldnt bother you much...

A question for all those who follow Leviticus- What about all the other rules in the same chapter, forbidding, for example, the consumtion of shellfish?

I think that was only intended for the Jewish people, mildew on linen laws etc

I think that was only intended for the Jewish people, mildew on linen laws etc
The point that I believe s/he was trying to make was, if those laws no longer apply, then how come the laws about homosexuals in that book supposedly still do apply?

Way to many posts to read in this right now, but have to point out something said about churches granting marriage licence.

In the US, each individual state grants the Marriage license not the Church. therefore this issue should be decided by those states, not the federal government and not the church. It is not a religous issue, it is a legal issue to be decided by the states voters. If you do not like Democracy and the majority rule, because after all that is what democracy is, then you should either get out the word and make people see your point to make the changes. Or move to another state where there are people that believe like you do. THe courts have no say either as the Constitution of the USA does not define marriage as anything. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The people need to decide this issue and those in favor of same sex marriage need to get out and get the backing of those in their states.


To those against this due to some misunderstanding of the bible, I feel sorry for your warped brain. The bible above all else says love thy neighbor, and treat others as you wish to be treated. If you look hard enough you can find stories in the bible with men taking men. So the theory that somehow this is immoral holds little merit when you really check the whole good book out.
Democracy is great as long as the will of the people are heeded.

To the fanatics on this issue would like to do this :sniper: :mp5: To those that see this as an iinvasion of privacy and an attempt to get big brother more into our lives keep up the fight and maybe eventually we will be free of the oppression of the minority.

The point that I believe s/he was trying to make was, if those laws no longer apply, then how come the laws about homosexuals in that book supposedly still do apply?

How do you know they dont, Jews are pretty stuck on following the laws of Moses.
Its funny you should say this too, because Ive been chatting with some individuals tonight, who told me that the Jews had no concept of homosexuality, or even a name for it, and here you are telling me they had laws concerning them, I guess the silly little bees never read Leviticus properly.

How do you know they dont, Jews are pretty stuck on following the laws of Moses.
Its funny you should say this too, because Ive been chatting with some individuals tonight, who told me that the Jews had no concept of homosexuality, or even a name for it, and here you are telling me they had laws concerning them, I guess the silly little bees never read Leviticus properly.
Let me rephrase this.
Many people seem to believe that there are laws in Leviticus about homosexuality. I will make no claim whether they do or do not concern it, as I have insufficient evidence. However, many people seem to find it fit to follow the supposed rules against homosexuality, with the justification that they are the Word of God, and yet do not follow the other rules in Leviticus, claiming that Jesus's coming invalidated the old laws. So it makes rather little sense for one supposed law against homosexuality to still stand, if all of the laws were made invalid and replaced with the new laws of love by Jesus.

How do you know they dont, Jews are pretty stuck on following the laws of Moses.
Its funny you should say this too, because Ive been chatting with some individuals tonight, who told me that the Jews had no concept of homosexuality, or even a name for it, and here you are telling me they had laws concerning them, I guess the silly little bees never read Leviticus properly.

I think the point being made heree is there is a subtle difference between "homosexuality" and what defines a person as homosexual.

To those against this due to some misunderstanding of the bible, I feel sorry for your warped brain. The bible above all else says love thy neighbor, and treat others as you wish to be treated. If you look hard enough you can find stories in the bible with men taking men. So the theory that somehow this is immoral holds little merit when you really check the whole good book out.
Democracy is great as long as the will of the people are heeded.


I dont think the stories in the bible concerning homosexuality as in men taking men as you put it, were meant to endorse homosexuality as a positive thing, if you look hard enough, you may see this, but I agree with you a hundred percent on the minority and democracy rules thing.

I normally wouldn't post twice in such a jackass forum, but I've got an addendum I know you're all dying to hear. First, I will address that;

I also happen to hate Blake 7.

Now, that's settled. Really- what a jackass. And yes, jackass is my new favorite word. Love it. Love it to death. Now... He's a jackass, as we all know, and should clearly be shot. (Yep. Lookit me, being jackassy myself.) On to the next bit of business. Some jackass, I didn't bother reading the name, told me I needed to see a psychologist. That one, I found particularly amusing, if for no other reason than I just so happen to be a psychologist. And once I get the medical bit out of the way, I'll be a psychiatrist. Fun fun. Now, don't go being jackasses; unlike several I can think of off the top of my head, I keep business seperate from life. And don't be a jackass and say something along the lines of, "You must be a horrible psychologist." That would be a stupid conclusion to reach. You've probably never been in a single therapy session with me. Nooooow, come to think of it, there is one other addendum I'd like to add. Just to piss more people off.

I hate homosexuals who have sex with people of the opposite sex (Unless they're not sure they're gay. Then they're just stupid; not hated.), marry anyone of the opposite sex, that sort of thing. No, think about it; It's just fucking stupid. If you're doing it for a tax break, you're a penny-pinching jackass. If you're doing it for 'love,' you're a bisexual jackass and only think you're gay. If it's for any reason, tell me, I'll tell you whether you're stupid or not.

Let's see... Have I not offended anyone yet? I'm sure everyone has at least thought I'm being harsh, by now. Alright, alright. Just for kicks, I'll toss out a seperate list of things that are absolutely stupid and worthy of my hate. Ready, kiddies? Here;

1. Any sort of extreme physical modifications. For example, dying your hair is not stupid and worthy of hate. Sex changes are. (Yes. Yes, I do hate you.)

2. Prostitution. Not prostitutes; if it's all they can do, whatever. But anyone else involved in it is stupid and hated.

3. Idiots. Generally, bigots. This one speaks for itself.

4. Any sort of mental modification. For example, antidepressants, psychologists (Yeah, for that one, I hate myself. There, see? You're not alone.), etc.

There we go. Now, finally, I'm bored again. Have fun with your "debate." Heh. Debate... It's not a debate. A debate has support on both sides. Not once have I seen a good argument for why I should burn in Hell or some such crap for being gay. Alright, yes, I promised I was leaving. Fine. I'm going. Bye.

May- Oh, never mind. Fuck you if you're a jackass, if you're not, congratulations; you're worthy of living.

I normally wouldn't post twice in such a jackass forum, but I've got an addendum I know you're all dying to hear. First, I will address that;
I also happen to hate Blake 7.
Now, that's settled. Really- what a jackass. And yes, jackass is my new favorite word. Love it. Love it to death. Now... He's a jackass, as we all know, and should clearly be shot. (Yep. Lookit me, being jackassy myself.) On to the next bit of business. Some jackass, I didn't bother reading the name, told me I needed to see a psychologist. That one, I found particularly amusing, if for no other reason than I just so happen to be a psychologist. And once I get the medical bit out of the way, I'll be a psychiatrist. Fun fun. Now, don't go being jackasses; unlike several I can think of off the top of my head, I keep business seperate from life. And don't be a jackass and say something along the lines of, "You must be a horrible psychologist." That would be a stupid conclusion to reach. You've probably never been in a single therapy session with me. Nooooow, come to think of it, there is one other addendum I'd like to add. Just to piss more people off.
I hate homosexuals who have sex with people of the opposite sex (Unless they're not sure they're gay. Then they're just stupid; not hated.), marry anyone of the opposite sex, that sort of thing. No, think about it; It's just fucking stupid. If you're doing it for a tax break, you're a penny-pinching jackass. If you're doing it for 'love,' you're a bisexual jackass and only think you're gay. If it's for any reason, tell me, I'll tell you whether you're stupid or not.
Let's see... Have I not offended anyone yet? I'm sure everyone has at least thought I'm being harsh, by now. Alright, alright. Just for kicks, I'll toss out a seperate list of things that are absolutely stupid and worthy of my hate. Ready, kiddies? Here;
1. Any sort of extreme physical modifications. For example, dying your hair is not stupid and worthy of hate. Sex changes are. (Yes. Yes, I do hate you.)
2. Prostitution. Not prostitutes; if it's all they can do, whatever. But anyone else involved in it is stupid and hated.
3. Idiots. Generally, bigots. This one speaks for itself.
4. Any sort of mental modification. For example, antidepressants, psychologists (Yeah, for that one, I hate myself. There, see? You're not alone.), etc.
There we go. Now, finally, I'm bored again. Have fun with your "debate." Heh. Debate... It's not a debate. A debate has support on both sides. Not once have I seen a good argument for why I should burn in Hell or some such crap for being gay. Alright, yes, I promised I was leaving. Fine. I'm going. Bye.
May- Oh, never mind. Fuck you if you're a jackass, if you're not, congratulations; you're worthy of living.

You do know the rules about personal attacks here and on flaming etc, its all in that statement you agreed to abide by, try and keep that in your little mind from now on, um also dont say again you would like to have me shot or you will be going to moderation.

Understand?

EDIT- actually I just read all that waffel you posted again, and your clearly under the influence of something or other, when you come too, you may probably regret what you posted on here, if not the warning still stands, so back off now.

You do know the rules about personal attacks here and on flaming etc, its all in that statement you agreed to abide by, try and keep that in your little mind from now on, um also dont say again you would like to have me shot or you will be going to moderation.
He's already in Moderation for something else as well as this.

He's already in Moderation for something else as well as this.

Yeah I think the guys on something, hey mate -mate *clicks fingers snap out of it and go to bed or you will get yourself banned.
Im sorry you hate me JG.

[QUOTE] 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.

I think that must've been a Freudian slip. Sexual intercourse was NOT created for the sole purpose of PROcreation. How do I know this? Look at the clitoris. It serves ZERO purpose in the human body other than to provide pleasure. Why is it that when someone achieves orgasm that massive amounts of dopamine and norepinephrine (pleasure chemicals) are released in their brains? Because it's SUPPOSED to feel good -- that's why we keep doing it. If sex didn't feel good, do you think anybody would do it? Other than the occasional idiot straight man saying "I bet I can shoot farther than you" the answer is no! Sex is SUPPOSED to be recreational! Otherwise women wouldn't have a clitoris! And we all know that if they didn't, the world would wobble off its axis and we'd be headed for doom.

=Breor Aillan I think that must've been a Freudian slip.
It was, I meant procreation :)

Sexual intercourse was NOT created for the sole purpose of PROcreation.

It was, I mean duuuh! vagina meets penis, baby.
Any pleasure derived from this is just a nice side effect, the clitoris as you say and the male orgasm are part of natures way of getting us to have more sex in order to procreate, I mean if it wasnt pleasurable we wouldnt do it, well not half as much anyway.

EDIT- Im off to bed, have to get up in 5 hours for work.
Prays for rain.

When reading the bible Blake how you take it depends on your own personal views. The Ten Commandments state everything that is "Gods" law.

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
VI. Thou shalt not kill.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

No where does it say thou shall not take the same sex into your bed. This is, as it always has been a personal choice. I am married, two kids and a beatiful wife. If the federal government starts to tell us what exactly is Marriage then what is to stop them from telling us what makes up a family? Or what is there to stop them from saying incest is moral and should be done? Marriage is not a religous thing, as you need the government in your state to issue the marriage license. If you are religous person you then go in front of you church so your "God" can recongnize this union. But you need a marriage license before the majority of the Churches in the US will even perform the ceromony.

Now if Marriaga is handled differently in other countries that is their own perogative. The people of that country need to decide what is right for them after all and not worry about some fanatic in another country telling them what is right. In the US the people have spoken and it is the individual states that grant Marriage. Lets keep it that way and keep the Feds out of our business. They are in it to much as it is.

Oh and there are fanatics on both sides of this issue and I think both are quite wrong as they look to subvert the will of the people and the democracy for which we all claim to live by.

It was, I mean duuuh! vagina meets penis, baby.
Any pleasure derived from this is just a nice side effect, the clitoris as you say and the male orgasm are part of natures way of getting us to have more sex in order to procreate, I mean if it wasnt pleasurable we wouldnt do it, well not half as much anyway.

EDIT- Im off to bed, have to get up in 5 hours for work.
Prays for rain.

So, then, by your logic, even IF I were a straight man, I could not get married (or at least have sex -- I'm effectively sterile [long story unrelated to this -- I have congenital urogenital tract defects]) because I would be unable to produce children. What about post-menopausal women? Should they be prevented from getting married or having sex because it won't result in children? Or what about couples who are intentionally childless? Should they be barred from marrying? I know this has been said before, but I think it should be repeated because it's a good argument.

EDIT- Im off to bed, have to get up in 5 hours for work.
Prays for rain.
Hey, "Prayers for Rain" is a good song!

...

Oh wait, we aren't talking about The Cure.
Oops.
:D

Really, sort've sad. But I'm up for it. Heeeere we go.

First, I'd like to take the time to point out, Blake, that you are an idiot. Second, I really don't care about moderators. So I get banned. Ooh. Scary. Am I honestly supposed to care? The only thing this forum has ever done for me is served to annoy me. That's hardly a reason to care about whether I'm allowed to post or not. Mmh, besides, I really don't see how anything I've written is any worse than these idiots claiming I'll burn in Hell for liking men. No better, obviously, but does it matter? Yes, yes it does. But only because I've managed to present myself as a thoroughly unpleasant person. I suppose I must be pretty well disliked on this forum, and I'm not the average idiot, I actually put a little thought into my posts.

Sure, I just yell about how I hate everyone. But a lot of love goes into that hate. I do think on this all for a while before I post. But, I've learned that people never respond to intelligence, and nothing ever changes because of a little post in a cheap forum. So... Why not just call everyone a jackass and tell them how much I hate them, and exactly why? Exactly. No reason not to, except that the scary moderators might get me.

But hey, look at things this way; If all this forum does is piss me off, and I can't change any idiots' views (I've been around for a while, I've tried more times than I care to think about.), well- what's the point in this? By that logic, I shouldn't even be posting here. That brings up two obvious conclusions, one of which being I don't care about the damn moderators, and the other being, "Why doesn't he just not post then?"

Well, part of it is that I have nothing better to do. Part of it is I hate stupid people, and I love telling them so. And then, there's a more complex reason that I won't tell you or it would spoil everything I've been working toward with my last few posts. So just deal with the fact that I'm here until the moderators ban me. If you want that to happen sooner, talk to them. I'm sure when you show them this, they'll be happy to remove me.

Now, again I've ended up talking a LOT more than I had originally intended to. That's something I've got to work on; shortening things so I can just get to the point and be done with it. Oh well, if this is my last post, might as well make it count, eh? Well, before I go, I'll say just a few more things.

1. I probably hate you.
2. You probably deserve it.
3. If I don't hate you, congrats. You're doing damn good.
4. If you don't deserve it, I'm sorry. And I don't mean if you think you don't deserve it; I mean, if I'm wrong.
5. If I don't hate you and you deserve it, I've done something wrong. I'm sorry, and I hate you.
6. You're all a bunch of lazy bastards. All of you. You post repeatedly arguing over the same thing your first post argued, and yet when I throw something like this out here... I get nothing. "You must be on something," "You need to see a psychologist," and stuff about moderation. I'd appreciate a flame or two.
7. Blake, much as I hate to disappoint you, I will never regret any of my posts. I do my best never to do anything I'll regret, and so far I've managed it. Also, I'm not on anything. I don't smoke, I don't drink, and I don't do drugs. Yay, me. And, furthermore, I'd like to point out that I have never been anywhere near this much of a jackass outside of these forums. Sadly, I'm usually pretty nice. Even to jackasses. What can I say? The jackasses on these forums bring out the jackass in me.

There. All done. I hope you've enjoyed this as much as I did, because if you did, you're in painful, burning agony.

:headbang: People are such idiots...

Oh and there are fanatics on both sides of this issue and I think both are quite wrong as they look to subvert the will of the people and the democracy for which we all claim to live by.

If wanting and expecting equal rights makes me a fanatic, then so be it. I'll accept the title. And if thinking that issues of Civil Rights should NEVER be put up to a popular vote either, then so be it. Majority rule is why Africans were slaves, why women couldn't vote, etc. If left up tot he majority, the minority will always be oppressed.

And no, its not oppression by minority for us to stand up say that its unacceptable to treat us as less than human equals.

So, then, by your logic, even IF I were a straight man, I could not get married (or at least have sex -- I'm effectively sterile [long story unrelated to this -- I have congenital urogenital tract defects]) because I would be unable to produce children. What about post-menopausal women? Should they be prevented from getting married or having sex because it won't result in children? Or what about couples who are intentionally childless? Should they be barred from marrying? I know this has been said before, but I think it should be repeated because it's a good argument.

Hah, he's avoided it every single time its been brought up. Good luck with that.

Hah, he's avoided it every single time its been brought up. Good luck with that.

Anyways, B7, you are infringing on several Christian Church's rights to perform a sacrament. If you are Christian, as it seems, then how would you like it if the government was going to pass a anmendment to prevent you from getting baptized?

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

I don't know, how about you build a time machine and go ask them? :rolleyes: Maybe they just didn't care and so didn't try to label them.

Chances are that they didn't have the word Hetrosexual either. The point was that since the word didn't exist, it might have been translated wrong, completely changing the meaning of the sentence.

Bottom line, dick + pussy = baby dick + dick = HIV

Actually I think that nowadays the majority would be Infected needle + anyone = HIV

Straight couples can quite easily get it too if they aren't careful. AIDS doesn't discriminate.

Chances are that they didn't have the word Hetrosexual either. The point was that since the word didn't exist, it might have been translated wrong, completely changing the meaning of the sentence.Ha. This is what is known in educated circles as "wishful thinking." The Hebrews may not have had a word for the behavior, but they certainly could just spell out what it was, which is of course, precisely what they did, c.f. Leviticus 20:13.

First, I'd like to take the time to point out, Blake, that you are an idiot. Second, I really don't care about moderators.

<snip - lots more of the same>
JudeccaGunner, you're obviously aware that you're flaming, and you're equally obviously aware that we as Moderators must address this. Therefore, consider this your first warning for flaming and flamebaiting.
And, furthermore, I'd like to point out that I have never been anywhere near this much of a jackass outside of these forums. Sadly, I'm usually pretty nice. Even to jackasses. What can I say? The jackasses on these forums bring out the jackass in me.
Then might I suggest you either stop reading topics which don't advance ideas that you agree with, or find a better way of expressing your distaste. Resorting to such childish behavior only serves to weaken your case.
One day, though, I promise we will bury the hatchet. Or rather, I will bury the hatchet. In your head. Ah, good times.
Given the tenor of your posts in this thread, I'm inclined to believe this is hyperbole rather than an actual threat. Please don't give us reason to suspect otherwise.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Ha. This is what is known in educated circles as "wishful thinking." The Hebrews may not have had a word for the behavior, but they certainly could just spell out what it was, which is of course, precisely what they did, c.f. Leviticus 20:13.


...and you (or anyone) cares about the tribal laws of bronze age jews because...?

I'm quite sure they spelled out a lot of things and what they wrote which didn't survive history would probably resemble the rantings of Dr. Laura. :D

...and you (or anyone) cares about the tribal laws of bronze age jews because...?Because they are the basis of two worldwide religions, one of which claims close to half the world's population as members. Believe it, or don't, but you certainly shouldn't dismiss something which billions of people take very seriously.

Because they are the basis of two worldwide religions, one of which claims close to half the world's population as members. Believe it, or don't, but you certainly shouldn't dismiss something which billions of people take very seriously.

Verses like Levi 20:13 are probably the strongest evidence the bible was written and concieved by men though and therefore I dismiss it utterly.

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.

Jesus Christ. This is insane.
I assume you'd like to wear sailor uniforms then? Go ahead. It's not like people are going to think you're gay or something...

dude if you want to talk about the holyness of marriage and how it's only of a man to a woman, think about this is it not also a lifelong commitment? under your logic divorce should also be outlawed and if you're gonna make an exception for something breaking the code of marriage why not allow this?

Verses like Levi 20:13 are probably the strongest evidence the bible was written and concieved by men though and therefore I dismiss it utterly.
This is a great attitude. I guess we should do the same with Newtonian mechanics, Einstien's relativity, Bohr's postulates, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Darwin's theories, vaccines (invented by Jenner and Pastuer, both men), antibiotics, the Constitution, the Magna Carta, the Lord of the Rings, War and Peace...
Yeah, it seems dismissing an entire gender from any consideration is a great idea. You just proved you are an absolute intellectual lightweight, congratulations.

AIDS doesn't discriminate.

Only bigots do.

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

i agree with you. i don't really see the point in fighting over such a stupid topic. If they want marrige, let them.

This is a great attitude. I guess we should do the same with Newtonian mechanics, Einstien's relativity, Bohr's postulates, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Darwin's theories, vaccines (invented by Jenner and Pastuer, both men), antibiotics, the Constitution, the Magna Carta, the Lord of the Rings, War and Peace...
Yeah, it seems dismissing an entire gender from any consideration is a great idea. You just proved you are an absolute intellectual lightweight, congratulations.

None of the things you listed are Holy Books that are supposed to (at the very least) be inspired by God. The first group (Darwin's theories, Bohr's postulates, et al) are scientific theories that seek to describe the world around us and automatically admit they might be wrong. antibiotics's worth have been proven and are not used to condemn anyone who doesn't believe in them to hell, the Consitution is a legal document that seeks to grant freedom to all and to protect our nation, same for the Magna Carta, the Lord of the Rings and War and Peace are fictional works of literature that do not seek to be taken as fact.

The Bible is different--at least the way many peopel read it. It seeks to be taken as the literal truth and to be written or inspired by the hand of God. However, there are quite a few contradictions and other problems in it that make it hard to believe God actually had any more to do with the writing than the men who actually wrote it (or screwed it up). I personally believe that the Bible, esp. the gospels, are a great roadmap on life that anyone can appreciate and use, Christian or not.

The funniest thing about the Anti-Gay Marriage debate is the "fact that it will somehow destroy the fundamentals of civilisation". Well, la dee da, that is the biggest load of bullcrap I have ever heard (no hyperbole, of course)...

You might want to check this out...
www.cbc.ca/mondayreport

Click on the section entitled "Denmark: Beautiful, serene, and out of control". If you are reading this after Sunday, February 13, you will have to look in the "archives" section.

This is a great attitude. I guess we should do the same with Newtonian mechanics, Einstien's relativity, Bohr's postulates, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Darwin's theories, vaccines (invented by Jenner and Pastuer, both men), antibiotics, the Constitution, the Magna Carta, the Lord of the Rings, War and Peace...
Yeah, it seems dismissing an entire gender from any consideration is a great idea. You just proved you are an absolute intellectual lightweight, congratulations.

I think what Fugiles meant was that the Bible was written by man as in humans, not those whose sex chromosomes are XY. Fugiles' disregard for the Bible stems from the fact that it was written by ordinary people inspired by ordinary people rather than being written by a divine entity.

If you truly believe in freedom then you'll allow the same rights for everybody. Just cause we prefer our own sex over the opposite doesn't mean we're some kind of freakshow. Marriage is a bond of love and what other reason is there that any gay or straight person would want to get married other than love? Homosexuals should not be kept from each other by people who are just afraid of something they aren't.

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.

By saying that it is in breech of the 9th amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Also, I don't know what the whole deal with gay marriage is about. The government cannot base it on religion due to the first Ammendment. Also, gay marriage is supported by the fourteenth Ammendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

:headbang: :headbang: You should olny be allowd to marry the oppisite sex. This issue talks about a rupluse site to be seen. What if a gay couple of the same sex you are comes up to youand ask you to join them? What would you think what would u say? Answer this queston and then you will know the correct answer. :fluffle: :headbang:

:headbang: :headbang: You should olny be allowd to marry the oppisite sex. This issue talks about a rupluse site to be seen. What if a gay couple of the same sex you are comes up to youand ask you to join them? What would you think what would u say? Answer this queston and then you will know the correct answer. :fluffle: :headbang:

What the hell are you babbling about? I don't follow at all what you're saying...

:headbang: :headbang: You should olny be allowd to marry the oppisite sex. This issue talks about a rupluse site to be seen. What if a gay couple of the same sex you are comes up to youand ask you to join them? What would you think what would u say? Answer this queston and then you will know the correct answer. :fluffle: :headbang:

Well, the proper and easiest answer woudl be "No, I'm not gay."

Gee, that was hard.

Well, the proper and easiest answer woudl be "No, I'm not gay."

Gee, that was hard.

Oh, so that's what he was saying. Basically trying to steer the debate to the so-called "slippery slope" where it means legalizaing polygamy too. I'm just surprised he didn't say "a same sex couple with a baby and a dog walks up to you..."

Get real dude. Gays who want to get married are not likely to try to hit on someone else. Y'know, what with marriage being a contract of exclusivity and all.

Unmarried gays, on the other hand.... :D

(Technically, he should be supporting gay marriage, so he won't get hit on by all those unamrried gays out there)

:headbang: :headbang: You should olny be allowd to marry the oppisite sex. This issue talks about a rupluse site to be seen. What if a gay couple of the same sex you are comes up to youand ask you to join them? What would you think what would u say? Answer this queston and then you will know the correct answer. :fluffle: :headbang:

I refuse to be lectured on sexual morality by a person calling themself "Hentai humpers" :p :rolleyes:

This is a great attitude. I guess we should do the same with Newtonian mechanics, Einstien's relativity, Bohr's postulates, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Darwin's theories, vaccines (invented by Jenner and Pastuer, both men), antibiotics, the Constitution, the Magna Carta, the Lord of the Rings, War and Peace...
Yeah, it seems dismissing an entire gender from any consideration is a great idea. You just proved you are an absolute intellectual lightweight, congratulations.


ummm kay...

maybe I should've wrote "mankind" oh... and "womankind" so it isn't so sexist. ;)

You should olny be allowd to marry the oppisite sex. This issue talks about a rupluse site to be seen. What if a gay couple of the same sex you are comes up to youand ask you to join them? What would you think what would u say? Answer this queston and then you will know the correct answer.

Hentai Humpers, I'm sure if you find homosexual tendencies to be repulsive, someone will find your obsession with the sexual activites of animated characters to be disturbing.

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.

Um... I wouldn't give a one off TV show run by the 9 network any real credibility... :rolleyes:
And just so you know, in real standardised IQ tests the average is set to 100...

And I scored off the chart in that test. ;) ANd I'm one of those 'inferior' "LEFTIST", NON-WHITE, WOMEN you love so much. *smiles sweetly*

And I scored off the chart in that test. ;) ANd I'm one of those 'inferior' "LEFTIST", NON-WHITE, WOMEN you love so much. *smiles sweetly*

Preebles, I love you. Please be my fag hag :)

Also, I do think I remember reading or hearing somewhere (and yes, this is heresay so no need to get into a big arguement over it conservatives) that liberals tended to be more intelligent than conservatives.

:headbang: :headbang: You should olny be allowd to marry the oppisite sex. This issue talks about a rupluse site to be seen. What if a gay couple of the same sex you are comes up to youand ask you to join them? What would you think what would u say? Answer this queston and then you will know the correct answer. :fluffle: :headbang:

If two women ask me to join them, regardless if they are gay or not the answer is going to be yes. What man in their right mind is going to deny that?

Preebles, I love you. Please be my fag hag
Gladly. :) Um...
What does that entail exactly?

Also, I do think I remember reading or hearing somewhere (and yes, this is heresay so no need to get into a big arguement over it conservatives) that liberals tended to be more intelligent than conservatives.
Well this board speaks for itself. ;)

Gladly. :) Um...
What does that entail exactly?

Gossip. . .shopping. . . . more gossip. . . . movie/TV series marathons (my favorites are to watch half a season of Buffy or Charmed and a "Chick Flick" night with Steel Magnolias, Fried Green Tomatoes, and Beaches) . . . and of course LOTS of cattiness.


Well this board speaks for itself. ;)

Well, we speak for ourselves. . .our opponents grunt ;)

Gossip. . .shopping. . . . more gossip. . . . movie/TV series marathons (my favorites are to watch half a season of Buffy or Charmed and a "Chick Flick" night with Steel Magnolias, Fried Green Tomatoes, and Beaches) . . . and of course LOTS of cattiness.

I'm in. Now can you help me curl me hair? :p

I'm in. Now can you help me curl me hair? :p

I never learned how to curl hair--I can straighten it though. I used to have hair down to my shoulders in HS . . . but I was having to get up at 4AM EVERY FREAKING MORNING to wash and straighten it because it was too wavy.

I can do a nice french twist though. Oh, and I'm an excellent dance partner. . .you like swing?

I never learned how to curl hair--I can straighten it though. I used to have hair down to my shoulders in HS . . . but I was having to get up at 4AM EVERY FREAKING MORNING to wash and straighten it because it was too wavy.
Damn, I have really straight hair. :p I'm so jealous of my boyfriend. He has long hair and just the right amount of curl. Well, ok, now he has dreadlocks...

can do a nice french twist though. Oh, and I'm an excellent dance partner. . .you like swing?
I'm a bad dancer. *blush* Maybe you can help me? :p

Damn, I have really straight hair. :p I'm so jealous of my boyfriend. He has long hair and just the right amount of curl. Well, ok, now he has dreadlocks...


I'm a bad dancer. *blush* Maybe you can help me? :p


Believe me, if I coudl teach my last FH, I guarantee I can help you. We'll have you turning flips in no time, lol.

As for your hair, I might not be able to curl it--but I know plenty of people who can!

It was, I meant procreation :)



It was, I mean duuuh! vagina meets penis, baby.
Any pleasure derived from this is just a nice side effect, the clitoris as you say and the male orgasm are part of natures way of getting us to have more sex in order to procreate, I mean if it wasnt pleasurable we wouldnt do it, well not half as much anyway.

EDIT- Im off to bed, have to get up in 5 hours for work.
Prays for rain.
Then explain why women are able to experiance sexual pleasure post menopause.

Any pleasure derived from this is just a nice side effect, the clitoris as you say and the male orgasm are part of natures way of getting us to have more sex in order to procreate, I mean if it wasnt pleasurable we wouldnt do it, well not half as much anyway.

Several species of insect and spider eat the male after, or even during, mating. Do they do it for pleasure?

So if someone, say your neighbor was having an unnatural relationship with their cat, it wouldnt bother you much...

Only if it bothered the cat.

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.
I know what you mean. Straights have entirely ruined chariot riding for me. Once it was a cool sport; now it's got such straight over-tones for me. Like in that Ben Hur movie, where all the straight guys whipped and enticed those horses; it was really quite intolerable.

EDIT: /sarcasm.

If society and especially the law panders to each and every minority group out there, our social structure will degrade into total chaos. Besides, it seems to me that many these people want to be married purely for the financial benefits rather than out of love or commitment to a relationship.

And for those twits who incorrectly assumed that I object from "religious grounds", please note: I am an atheist.

In other words, stop trying to change society to fit your niche - perhaps, try fitting in to society like the rest of us.

If society and especially the law panders to each and every minority group out there, our social structure will degrade into total chaos.

Ever been to Canada?

Gays have been marrying for two years here. Total chaos isn't quite to our doors yet.

Ever heard of Denmark, or Holland? They can marry there too. They've been able to do so for even longer than Canada. Chaos hasn't befallen their societies yet either.

If society and especially the law panders to each and every minority group out there, our social structure will degrade into total chaos.
Whoever said that it should pander to every minority's whim? It should, however, give everyone the rights afforded us in the Constitution, regardless of who they are.
Besides, it seems to me that many these people want to be married purely for the financial benefits rather than out of love or commitment to a relationship.
Who said that?
We can already get married for love in some states. But we are getting the short end of the stick here, as most of the legal benefits of a standard marriage do not apply. Many of them aren't even oriented around money.
In other words, stop trying to change society to fit your niche - perhaps, try fitting in to society like the rest of us.
Fitting into society?
How so?
Not being homosexual?

Fitting into society?
How so?
Not being homosexual?

Why, of course!

Did you not know that to properly fit into society, you had to be a white male, 24-44 yo, straight, christian and republican(for those living in the USA)?

Those who doesn't fir those criteria are only second state citizens anyway. It's not like their opinion matters.

[/sarcasm]

Why, of course!

Did you not know that to properly fit into society, you had to be a white male, 24-44 yo, straight, christian and republican(for those living in the USA)?

Those who doesn't fir those criteria are only second state citizens anyway. It's not like their opinion matters.

[/sarcasm]
What are you smoking? You completely missed the point. Histrionics are easier than a serious reply, eh?

What are you smoking? You completely missed the point. Histrionics are easier than a serious reply, eh?
Well, there's this thing called humour...
S/he was making a joke off of my serious reply. If you want a serious reply, perhaps you could go back a page and read mine?

What are you smoking? You completely missed the point. Histrionics are easier than a serious reply, eh?

I did post a serious reply to your post. Get to the last page, and check it out.

Your argument about chaos befalling society is utterly ridiculous. As for society having to obey the whim of minorities... it's been adressed by someone else. It's a question of society giving everyone equal rights and opportunities.

Only if it bothered the cat.

Theres a pretty good chance that it would.

Several species of insect and spider eat the male after, or even during, mating. Do they do it for pleasure?

No probably for nourishment, the male of this species understands this and nobley sacrifices himself for the continuation of the species.
But why limit nature to just pleasure in the sexual act, whats right for humans may be replaced by something else for other species, my point being, nature is incredibly varied in the ways and means in how species mate etc
Pleasure during the sexual act may not apply to other species, thus the eating of the mate could be whats driving these other lifeforms to have sex, not pleasure.

Theres a pretty good chance that it would.
Well, she's stated that if that were so, she would have a problem with it. If, somehow, the cat was not bothered by it, she would not have a problem with it.

Wait. Why the hell am I talking about having sex with cats?
:confused:
Eww.

Then explain why women are able to experiance sexual pleasure post menopause.

Maybe you can.

Well, she's stated that if that were so, she would have a problem with it. If, somehow, the cat was not bothered by it, she would not have a problem with it.

Wait. Why the hell am I talking about having sex with cats?
:confused:
Eww.

Neo why do you have to keep jumping into questions directed for other people, do you butt into conversations with complete strangers as well?
I asked you before nicely to quit it, this is the last time Im asking you.

Neo why do you have to keep jumping into questions directed for other people, do you butt into conversations with complete strangers as well?
I asked you before nicely to quit it, this is the last time Im asking you.
Well, as stated many times before, this is an open forum. People respond to whomever they wish. The analogy to real-life conversation is innacurate. If you don't wish others to reply to your posts, than don't post them.

On top of that, that wasn't even a question. It was a statement.

No probably for nourishment, the male of this species understands this and nobley sacrifices himself for the continuation of the species.
Prove it! How exactly do you know what insects are capable of understanding, much less what they understand. Why do the males of the species appear to try to escape their fate if they understand and accept it and are intending to be nobley sacrificed?
But why limit nature to just pleasure in the sexual act, whats right for humans may be replaced by something else for other species, my point being, nature is incredibly varied in the ways and means in how species mate etc
Pleasure during the sexual act may not apply to other species, thus the eating of the mate could be whats driving these other lifeforms to have sex, not pleasure.
The person who appears to be limiting things is you. Specifically you seem to be under the impression that procreation is limited to being entirely about the act which facilitates conception.

Well, she's stated that if that were so, she would have a problem with it. If, somehow, the cat was not bothered by it, she would not have a problem with it.

Wait. Why the hell am I talking about having sex with cats?
:confused:
Eww.

I don't know.
Would you like me to fix you up with one of mine? :fluffle:

I don't know.
Would you like me to fix you up with one of mine? :fluffle:
Err, no thanks...
I'll pass on that...
*runs away and hides*

Maybe you can.
Maybe I can.


Now back to the point, can you reconcile your statement regarding procreation, sexual pleasure, and the relationship between them, with the facts regarding human females' ability to enjoy sexual pleasure, post menopause or should we consider your theory debunked?

While we're on animals-

Dolphins 'do it' for 'fun', as well as procreation. There's also a kind of monkey that has sex as a kind of greeting, with the same or opposite sex.

Are these animals sinners? :p More relevantly, isn't this a sign that variation in sexual orientation is natural?

Um... I wouldn't give a one off TV show run by the 9 network any real credibility... :rolleyes:
And just so you know, in real standardised IQ tests the average is set to 100...
And I scored off the chart in that test. ;) ANd I'm one of those 'inferior' "LEFTIST", NON-WHITE, WOMEN you love so much. *smiles sweetly*

I dont care what bloody colour you are, I dont care if your green and purple.
You scored off the chart? Gee can I give your swelled up head a nice scratch?

Neo why do you have to keep jumping into questions directed for other people, do you butt into conversations with complete strangers as well?
I asked you before nicely to quit it, this is the last time Im asking you.

She's probably glad. If you don't ask her again then she won't have to remind you again that this is a public forum.

Oops. I don't suppose that was directed at me. :p

While we're on animals-

Dolphins 'do it' for 'fun', as well as procreation. There's also a kind of monkey that has sex as a kind of greeting, with the same or opposite sex.

Are these animals sinners? :p More relevantly, isn't this a sign that variation in sexual orientation is natural?
I'm guessing you refer to bonobo chimps...?

She's probably glad. If you don't ask her again then she won't have to remind you again that this is a public forum.
Oops. I don't suppose that was directed at me. :p

So what, public forum or not, whats the deal with getting involved in dialog between two people that doesnt concern you, its just a reflection on what the person is like in real life I guess.

Possibly. I am incredibly mouthy in real life.

So what, public forum or not, whats the deal with getting involved in dialog between two people that doesnt concern you, its just a reflection on what the person is like in real life I guess.
In real life, I wouldn't butt in on a conversation. It would be disruptive and rude, as it would prevent them from holding their conversation. Here, it is far easier to simple not read what another says if you don't want to listen to them.
Also, the public in the public forum is there for a reason. It is for public discussion.

Comparing the actions of various animal species to the social behaviour of humans is an extemely flawed method. The same "sex monkeys" you talk about eat thier own faeces - would you recommend we give that a try too?

So, then, by your logic, even IF I were a straight man, I could not get married (or at least have sex -- I'm effectively sterile [long story unrelated to this -- I have congenital urogenital tract defects]) because I would be unable to produce children. What about post-menopausal women? Should they be prevented from getting married or having sex because it won't result in children? Or what about couples who are intentionally childless? Should they be barred from marrying? I know this has been said before, but I think it should be repeated because it's a good argument.

But you could have children if you didnt have that defect, you had the potential, gay couples dont.

Comparing the actions of various animal species to the social behaviour of humans is an extemely flawed method. The same "sex monkeys" you talk about eat thier own faeces - would you recommend we give that a try too?
No, because that is a false analogy. It was claimed that sex was naturally intended only for procreation. If various animals naturally use sex for something other than procreation alone, it would seem that sex were not naturally intended only for that.

So what, public forum or not, whats the deal with getting involved in dialog between two people that doesnt concern you, its just a reflection on what the person is like in real life I guess.
I'm not aware that anyone is doing as you describe. Indeed it's difficult to see how anyone could do as you describe on a public forum such as this one...

If you dont like the rules and conventions by which these forums operate, I can only suggest finding a forum that does have rules and conventions not objectional to you, would probably be much quicker and easier than convincing everyone here to change their conduct just to suit you. Frankly the boards have worked out quite fine before you arrived to tell us how wrongly we were doing things...excuse us if we continue to do so, just exactly as though your arrival is not some huge revealation that forces us to reconsider the current status quo, with regard to conventional conduct on these forums.

In real life, I wouldn't butt in on a conversation. It would be disruptive and rude, as it would prevent them from holding their conversation. Here, it is far easier to simple not read what another says if you don't want to listen to them.
Also, the public in the public forum is there for a reason. It is for public discussion.

Your missing the point Neo, it was a matter that didnt involve you, you took up a reply that was for someone else as if it was your own, this will go for anyone else too, I just dont want to have to write out stuff twice or more about the same question , anyway I give up trying to make you see the light in this, so from now on you just wont get a reply if it happens again, Im not shutting you out, just letting you know why now, if you dont get an answer sometimes.

If you have that much of a problem with Neo, just put her on your ignore list.

I'm not aware that anyone is doing as you describe. Indeed it's difficult to see how anyone could do as you describe on a public forum such as this one...
If you dont like the rules and conventions by which these forums operate, I can only suggest finding a forum that does have rules and conventions not objectional to you, would probably be much quicker and easier than convincing everyone here to change their conduct just to suit you. Frankly the boards have worked out quite fine before you arrived to tell us how wrongly we were doing things...excuse us if we continue to do so, just exactly as though your arrival is not some huge revealation that forces us to reconsider the current status quo, with regard to conventional conduct on these forums.

Oh for godsake bugger off.

But you could have children if you didnt have that defect, you had the potential, gay couples dont.

exactly, most gay people don't even want children. Which is an advantage they have over straight couples.

Why should we care that breor doesn't want an operation to make him fertile? It's no biggie (as his partner said! LOL) and it can be done.

Anyway, who here wants kids yet uses condoms?
It's not a question of if you can, it's a question of if you can be bothered.

If you have that much of a problem with Neo, just put her on your ignore list.

I dont have a big problem with Neo at all, Neo seems to be an OK kind of person, its just this kind of thing that really irritates the hell out of me, thats all.

Apes <> Humans

exactly, most gay people don't even want children. Which is an advantage they have over straight couples.


I wouldnt call it that.

I dont have a big problem with Neo at all, Neo seems to be an OK kind of person, its just this kind of thing that really irritates the hell out of me, thats all.

We all have our pet peeves.

not me. my pets are all cats. wtf is a peeve?

sure this has probably been said before, but honestly can't be bothered reading 45 pages:-

Being a lesbian did not make my uterus disappear. The creation of children does not require the insertion of "Tab A" into "Slot B" - though it can for some people, it is not essential.

And, as for the financial vs love arguments - I'm sure that there are as many heteros who marry for benefits and money (Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears anyone?) yet no-one says this should disqualify a whole sexual preference.

A peeve is something that really annoys you. A pet peeve is something that may not annoy everybody, but is something that really annoys you.

BTW, all my pets are cats. I'm a cat nut.

not me. my pets are all cats. wtf is a peeve?
Main Entry: pet peeve
Function: noun
: a frequent subject of complaint
That's what a pet peeve is.

Prove it! How exactly do you know what insects are capable of understanding, much less what they understand. Why do the males of the species appear to try to escape their fate if they understand and accept it and are intending to be nobley sacrificed?
The person who appears to be limiting things is you. Specifically you seem to be under the impression that procreation is limited to being entirely about the act which facilitates conception.

Sigh... and do you know any better?
About the insects?
Do they get sexual pleasure from the copulation as humans usually do?
About the procreation, as in humans, the main purpose, of sex, is to reproduce, is it not?
Its main purpose is not recreation and never has been.
The pleasure of sex between men and women is a natural occurance, if done right, but does not take preceedence over procreation as the main object of sex.
Im not limiting things here as you so put it down to one thing, Im just merely acknoweleging what intercourse is really for.

I wouldnt call it that.

It's what my gay uncle calls it. And no, I'm not gay. And he's in a long term relationship, just in case there are any gay valentines out there.

So it could be said that not having kids is a gay benefit. No financial drag, no hassle of looking after kids who could mess up the decor.

Apes <> Humans

You seem to be advocating that humans came from apes, whether this is true or not, I would like to know why there are still apes around.
2001?

You seem to be advocating that humans came from apes, whether this is true or not, I would like to know why there are still apes around.
2001?
Um, that's not really what my point was, but for the record, I do believe humans and apes have a common ancestor.

So it could be said that not having kids is a gay benefit. No financial drag, no hassle of looking after kids who could mess up the decor.

No taking them down to the park and playing soccer either, the drawbacks farout weigh the benefits here I think.

Um, that's not really what my point was, but for the record, I do believe humans and apes have a common ancestor.

I go to the zoo sometimes and I admit the apes 'ape' us in a lot of ways, my theory is, they are humans who regressed in early evolution, while we went forward.

Sigh... and do you know any better?
Whether or not I know any better is not relevent to your argument. You stated an assertion, I have challenged you to substantiate your assertion. If you cant do so, then all you have is unsubstantiated argument, which is about as useful as no argument at all.

About the insects?
Do they get sexual pleasure from the copulation as humans usually do?
I doubt that either insects are equiped to experiance human sexual pleasure, or that this is relevent to the fact that your argument appears to be without substance.
About the procreation, as in humans, the main purpose, of sex, is to reproduce, is it not?
That would depend on your definition of reproduction. For your statement to be correct reproduction would need to be given the wider definition that in itself defeats the majority of most of your arguments.

Its main purpose is not recreation and never has been.
Actually I never stated it was, in fact I implied that your assertion that sex was primarily for recreation, was not necessarily true...

The pleasure of sex between men and women is a natural occurance, if done right, but does not take preceedence over procreation as the main object of sex.
Any pleasure is a natural occurance whether or not 'it' is 'done right'.


Im not limiting things here as you so put it down to one thing, Im just merely acknoweleging what intercourse is really for.
If you are not limiting reproduction to some of the aspects thereof, then I dont see how you can imagine that 2 males (or 2 females) not being able to achieve conception soley by engaging in copulation with each other, is relevent.

Do they get sexual pleasure from the copulation as humans usually do?


To this question alone i can proclaim atleast from the point of view of scientists the naswer is no.. only two species difinatilvly engage in copulation for pleasure, being Humans and dolphins.. it is not suspected though that some species of monkies/apes may also engage in copulation for pleasure.. Out side of these examples, all other species engage in copulation solely out of instinct and do not feel sexual pleasure from the process. Sexual pleasure can acutally be monitored through brain activity and chemical activity within the organisims.

The whole problem to the issue of gay marriage is the word marriage itself... Those advocating homosexual marriages are trying to change the definition of marriage itself...

You are correct to say the consitution and the supreme court grants marriage as an inalieable right given to everyone.. so even homosexuals can get married.. But up until now, marriage has been a union between a man and a woman.

In fact.. it is not unconsitutional to prevent homosexuals from recieved a marriage lisence if they are trying to get a union between a member of the same sex, because that is not a marriage.

Those advocating homosexual marriage say people get married for love...

the reality is, people get married for many reasons, economic, love, convience, friendship, political... infact isn't marriage on the basis of love a realitivly new advent ? Why are we going to redefine what marriage means (a tradition passed on for thousands of years) simply because a vast minority of the population feels left out or unrepresented by the process..

If the problem is the rights married people get (only considered to be an insentive to promot marriage) perhaps these insentives should be revolked.. Then equality can be again achieved..

While marriage is a right, the benifits it brings under the government are not rights.. they are simply incentives.

=Peopleandstuff Whether or not I know any better is not relevent to your argument. You stated an assertion, I have challenged you to substantiate your assertion. If you cant do so, then all you have is unsubstantiated argument, which is about as useful as no argument at all.

Here you are;

ReproductionThe eggs are produced in an egg case called an ootheca this may produce 30 to 300 young mantids depending on the species. A mated female produces more than one ootheca depending on how much food she gets and how long she lives some Miomantis species have been recorded laying as many as 22. The ootheca is a sort of polystyrene egg box which is secreted by the female as a liquid and then whipped into a froth around the egg cells, it varies in structure between species. For many temperate species the ootheca is the overwintering stage. The ootheca provides some protection against the environment and hides the eggs from many predators, however many are still parasitised by members of the Hymenoptera Parasitica, whose long thin ovipositors allow them to lay their eggs inside the cells hidden within the hardened foam of the ootheca Hatching usually takes between 3 and 6 months. The young may hatch all at once or in batches over a period of several weeks. Young Mantids like young Cockroaches, Grasshoppers and Crickets hatch as a pronymph surrounded by a protective membrane within which they move like grubs to the surface of the ootheca.
In some species there is a single exit tube along the bottom of the ootheca from which the young Mantids emerge individually, in others the young emerge through the oothecae wall nearest there particular egg cell and hang suspended from the ootheca on a silken cord secreted by a pair of papillae on the lower side 10th abdominal segment. They rapidly escape their protective case and climb up the silken cord to the ootheca. Young Mantids are extremely active and disperse rapidly from the vicinity of the ootheca. Though many are caught and eaten by ants or fall prey to spiders and other predators at this stage or while they are still struggling with there protective hatching suits, they soon become the predators and take to standing still waiting for their prey to come to them.
Praying Mantids are renowned for the females tendency to eat the male during copulation, and though this does not occur in all species, many smaller species such as Ameles spallanzania are not cannibalistic at all, in some species it is obligatory and the male can not pass on the spermatophore containing his sperm until he has had his head removed. From an ecological point of view for a species which lives thinly spread throughout the habitat, in which a male is because of this unlikely to encounter more that one female before something eats him and in which the females are very fecund (in some species a mated female can produce as many as 6 ootheca each containing up to 300 ova i.e. Tenodera aridifolia sinensis the male most enhances his chances of leaving offspring behind by mating with one female only and having his body then go to supply her with nourishment for the development of the first lot of eggs, female mantids only mate once. Some study has been done on Mantis religiosa the common European Mantid which suggests that some of the time at least the female attacks and eats the male simple because she fails to recognise him. The male is capable of successfully mating with the female after his head has been removed because copulatory activity is under the control of his last abdominal ganglion and thus is either not effected by, or, in cases where the sub-oesophageal ganglion of the head secretes inhibitory substances, is actually stimulated by the removal of his head.

Nowhere in this does it say or suggest the insects experience sexual pleasure, this was written by a professor who studies insects all his life, thus backing up my assertion.
Interestingly but it does say that some male mantids of certain species have to have their head bitten off in order to release the sperm sac, would you call this pleasurable?


I doubt that either insects are equiped to experiance human sexual pleasure, or that this is relevent to the fact that your argument appears to be without substance.

I never said human sexual pleasure, you bought that one in by yourself, and Im saying they dont experience sexual pleasure of any sort.
My arguement is with more substance than your rebuttal, that so far hasnt even bothered to put up any counter arguement, except for a demand that I back up my statement with some proof which I have above.

That would depend on your definition of reproduction. For your statement to be correct reproduction would need to be given the wider definition that in itself defeats the majority of most of your arguments.


So do you have some theory on reproduction between humans no one else has heard about yet, are there some kind of tribe of humans that can reproduce asexually, please do tell?
And try to remember this arguement is about human reproduction only, and what its prioritys really are.


Actually I never stated it was, in fact I implied that your assertion that sex was primarily for recreation, was not necessarily true...

That was a typo, I meant procreation, late night you know.

Any pleasure is a natural occurance whether or not 'it' is 'done right'.

If were talking about sex here, between men and women, the pleasure would have to come from it being done right.


If you are not limiting reproduction to some of the aspects thereof, then I dont see how you can imagine that 2 males (or 2 females) not being able to achieve conception soley by engaging in copulation with each other, is relevent.

Which is percisely why I think sexual acts between members of the same sex are, unnatural ones.

To this question alone i can proclaim atleast from the point of view of scientists the naswer is no.. only two species difinatilvly engage in copulation for pleasure, being Humans and dolphins.. it is not suspected though that some species of monkies/apes may also engage in copulation for pleasure.. Out side of these examples, all other species engage in copulation solely out of instinct and do not feel sexual pleasure from the process. Sexual pleasure can acutally be monitored through brain activity and chemical activity within the organisims.

There you go P&S ,more proof Im right, now how about an apology, about saying my arguement on this was without any substance?

um....half of the united states gets divorced, and coming from a community where the main reason for marriage is due to insurance purposes from unplanned (mostly teenage) pregnancy, I say that there just shouldn't be benefits to marriage. Maybe then people would take it seriously when it says, 'til death do us part' I mean, come on. Marriage has nothing to do with politics, in reality.

um....half of the united states gets divorced, and coming from a community where the main reason for marriage is due to insurance purposes from unplanned (mostly teenage) pregnancy, I say that there just shouldn't be benefits to marriage. Maybe then people would take it seriously when it says, 'til death do us part' I mean, come on. Marriage has nothing to do with politics, in reality.

That until death do we part business was bought up I think when the average persons lifespan was only about 40 to 50, not so much of a stretch then, if the marriage was on the rocks.

WHAT?! You guys are still arguing over this? I'm sorry, but is there really an issue here at all?

Here you are;

[B]Rant that doesnt prove whether or not certain insects understand that they will be cannabalised and nobley sacrifice themselves accordingly
Your quote does not substantiate that any insect nobly and with full understanding sacrifices themselves. In fact I dont see any inference that the insects understand what will happen to them in the passage you quoted.

Nowhere in this does it say or suggest the insects experience sexual pleasure, this was written by a professor who studies insects all his life, thus backing up my assertion.
Once again I point to the irrelevence of this.

Interestingly but it does say that some male mantids of certain species have to have their head bitten off in order to release the sperm sac, would you call this pleasurable?
No, but neither would I call it relevent to the discussion at hand.
I never said human sexual pleasure, you bought that one in by yourself,
No I didnt.
Do they get sexual pleasure from the copulation as humans usually do?
^Your quote, not mine...
and Im saying they dont experience sexual pleasure of any sort.
I'm not saying that it's relevent either way.
My arguement is with more substance than your rebuttal,
The onus of proof is on the assertive, not on challenges to the assertive. Any challenge to an assertive, that cannot be answered, (given the nature of assertions and rebuttals to them) is by definition a sound rebuttle, where as any assertion that cannot be substantiated is an unsubstantiated argument. Sound rebuttal is more substantive than unsubstantiated argument.
that so far hasnt even bothered to put up any counter arguement, except for a demand that I back up my statement with some proof
As the onus is on the affirmitive, a strong counter argument is not needed. That's what is meant by the onus being on the affirmitive.
which I have above.
Where?

So do you have some theory on reproduction between humans no one else has heard about yet,
No.
are there some kind of tribe of humans that can reproduce asexually, please do tell?
Are there?
And try to remember this arguement is about human reproduction only, and what its prioritys really are.
This discussion is about whether or not people should be able to marry consenting adults who are of the same sex as themselves.
That was a typo, I meant procreation, late night you know.
Aha, but it's no typo when I state that I didnt raise the issue of recreation, nor contend anything about recreation, except that I doubted it was the primary purpose of human sexualisation.
If were talking about sex here, between men and women, the pleasure would have to come from it being done right.
That's not relevent either way. The fact is any pleasure, if it exists, is natural.
Which is percisely why I think sexual acts between members of the same sex are, unnatural ones.
I cant imagine why your argument being without substance, convinces you of the truth of your argument...

The whole problem to the issue of gay marriage is the word marriage itself... Those advocating homosexual marriages are trying to change the definition of marriage itself...
No they are not. The definition of marraige is not universally 'one male and one female'.

You are correct to say the consitution and the supreme court grants marriage as an inalieable right given to everyone.. so even homosexuals can get married.. But up until now, marriage has been a union between a man and a woman.
No it hasnt

In fact.. it is not unconsitutional to prevent homosexuals from recieved a marriage lisence if they are trying to get a union between a member of the same sex, because that is not a marriage.
Why not? Many such marraiges have existed throughout the course of human history.

Those advocating homosexual marriage say people get married for love...

the reality is, people get married for many reasons, economic, love, convience, friendship, political... infact isn't marriage on the basis of love a realitivly new advent ?
No.

Why are we going to redefine what marriage means (a tradition passed on for thousands of years) simply because a vast minority of the population feels left out or unrepresented by the process..
Actually you are one trying to redefine marraige so that it only refers to those relationships which conform to your notion about marraige. Why should a tradition that appears to be very nearly universal for 1000's of years, suddenly be limited to your preferred formulation?

If the problem is the rights married people get (only considered to be an insentive to promot marriage) perhaps these insentives should be revolked.. Then equality can be again achieved..
Right, and you imagine that for all intents and purposes, removing an institution so adaptive that it is nearly universal in it's existence, wont have harmful effects because....

There you go P&S ,more proof Im right, now how about an apology, about saying my arguement on this was without any substance?
None of that is proof that any of your arguments are substantitive.

In fact the comment you have made, leads me to suspect that you dont understand what a substantive argument is....

None of that is proof that any of your arguments are substantitive.
In fact the comment you have made, leads me to suspect that you dont understand what a substantive argument is....

Substantive?
You love your words dont you, why cant you just talk normally and say 'an arguement with substance'? Is your continued usage of such words that you and probably less than .1 percent of the worlds population use and understand, some kind of endevour to make yourself feel superior to other posters on here?
But anyway, I gave you proof in which there was no evidence of these insects feeling sexual pleasure during copulation, that the act is merely instinctive, not one of lust.
It was further backed up by another poster with qualifications in Science, need I go on?
You havent bothered to provide one solitary shred of evidence to proove otherwise in rebuttal, all you can come back with is annalytical disections on theorys of arguement, so... hello? I think its your turn to at least make an effort.

Substantive?
You love your words dont you,
I certainly do like words.
why cant you just talk normally
I do talk normally.l
and say 'an arguement with substance'?
Why should I use 4 words where 2 are adequate?
Is your continued usage of such words that you and probably less than .1 percent of the worlds population use and understand, some kind of endevour to make yourself feel superior to other posters on here?
I wasnt aware that few people understood either the word substantive or the word argument, I certainly think it's unlikely that anyone unfamiliar with the word substantive and the word argument, who is also unable to work out the meaning of the phrase substantitive argument, would have anymore luck with the phrase 'an agruement with substance'.
But anyway, I gave you proof in which there was no evidence of these insects feeling sexual pleasure during copulation, that the act is merely instinctive, not one of lust.
In the first place absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the second place, even if your 'proof' did establish and absence of lust on the part of insects, that doesnt substantiate your argument, nor does it present a counter argument to anything that I have asserted. Another words it's not relevent.
It was further backed up by another poster with qualifications in Science, need I go on?
Need you?
You havent bothered to provide one solitary shred of evidence to proove otherwise in rebuttal,
That might have something to do with the fact that I have no interest in proving or disproving something that isnt relevent to the discussion with regards to my own participation in it?

all you can come back with is annalytical disections on theorys of arguement, so... .
Which is probably more helpful than raving on about who has the right to reply to comments made, and other red herrings like 'you talk too fancy'....

hello?
Hi..

I think its your turn to at least make an effort..
That's nice...give me something that requires some effort and I might see a need to make one. You might want to start by working out who said what, and what the supposed significance is in relation to the topic at hand.

=Peopleandstuff I certainly do like words.

Yes you do, you should live in a dictionary.

I do talk normally.l

Um no you dont actually.

Why should I use 4 words where 2 are adequate?

Why use one particular word thats hardly ever used, your not in a courtroom...

I wasnt aware that few people understood either the word substantive or the word argument, I certainly think it's unlikely that anyone unfamiliar with the word substantive and the word argument, who is also unable to work out the meaning of the phrase substantitive argument, would have anymore luck with the phrase 'an agruement with substance'.

Oh stop it, you know very well the only word was 'substantive' your just being a dick now.


In the first place absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But it was here, otherwise it would have been there.

[QUOTE] In the second place, even if your 'proof' did establish and absence of lust on the part of insects, that doesnt substantiate your argument, nor does it present a counter argument to anything that I have asserted. Another words it's not relevent.

What have you asserted?
Nothing!
Your whole participation in this has been one of invisibility almost.





Need you?

No actually, this is getting tiresome, its like going out to play tennis and the other player hasnt bothered to show up.

That might have something to do with the fact that I have no interest in proving or disproving something that isnt relevent to the discussion with regards to my own participation in it?

Well it was relevant, remember, sex?

Which is probably more helpful than raving on about who has the right to reply to comments made, and other red herrings like 'you talk too fancy'....

Raving on? Your the raver, I merely pointed out I didnt want to field a question that wasnt addressed to a person, from that person, rather the person it was asked, so what, get over it.


That's nice...give me something that requires some effort and I might see a need to make one. You might want to start by working out who said what, and what the supposed significance is in relation to the topic at hand.

What a load of crap, your just a lazy debater who cant make an effort, your a complete waste of my time, I think I'll put you on the ignore list with that other idiot.

Yes you do, you should live in a dictionary.
I've not yet encountered one big enough to serve as housing.
Um no you dont actually.
Sure I do, I would know this better than you, since of the two of us, I am the only one who has heard me talk....
Why use one particular word thats hardly ever used, your not in a courtroom...
What word? Surely you are not trying to tell me that the word substantive is rarely used?
Oh stop it, you know very well the only word was 'substantive' your just being a dick now.
Would that be the same word that you either knew previously, or easily worked out the meaning of?
In the first place absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But it was here, otherwise it would have been there.
No it wasnt evidence of absence, even if it were, it wasnt relevent to any comments that I had made.
What have you asserted?
Directly or via implication?
Nothing!
I doubt that it is the case, but I cant really be bothered to check. It doesnt matter either way. The point is your insect lust extract wasnt materially relevent to any comment that I made.
Your whole participation in this has been one of invisibility almost.
I suggest the number of times you have replied directly to me, is evidence contrary to your assertion.
No actually, this is getting tiresome, its like going out to play tennis and the other player hasnt bothered to show up.
Actually I thought it was more like watching a puppy chase it's own tail...


Well it was relevant, remember, sex?
No it wasnt relevent, anymore than the price of a prostitute in Germany is relevent.
Raving on?
Aha, you want to count how many times you tried to stop people from exercising their legitimate right to quote other posters and respond accordingly?
Your the raver,
Wow I must be a rare creature indeed, an invisible raver that makes no assertions...shouldnt I get some kind of medal for that....I already have a chest to pin it on....

I merely pointed out I didnt want to field a question that wasnt addressed to a person, from that person, rather the person it was asked, so what, get over it.
No you didnt merely point it out. You also cussed out other posters over, made aggressive and hostile posts about it, and basically had an internet paddy over it.


What a load of crap, your just a lazy debater who cant make an effort, your a complete waste of my time, I think I'll put you on the ignore list with that other idiot.
Actually I am not considered by those qualified to know one way or the other, to be a lazy debater. Even if I were, it is the quality of debate and not the level of effort which is important at the end of the day.

Put whoever you like on ignore, it doesnt make your arguments anymore substantive, nor does it make your conclusions any less wrong.

lol, talk about a battle of wits with an unarmed man...P&S, have you no sense of sportsmanship? find yourself an opponent who at least knows which end of the foil to grasp! :)

lol, talk about a battle of wits with an unarmed man...P&S, have you no sense of sportsmanship? find yourself an opponent who at least knows which end of the foil to grasp! :)
You want me to find someone who opposes the right of homosexual couples to get married, and knows which end of the foil to grasp in a debate....? :eek:



Should I single handedly bring about world peace while I'm at it.....? :rolleyes: ;)

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?

Hey, while we're at it... Let's make those gosh darn black folk get their own bathrooms and drinking fountains again.

Sound a bit prejudiced?

Yeah... thought so...

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 big of a deal about it.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT????????? Taxing people on their choices of lifestyle, hmm hitler sounding. I think you should come out of the mid 40s into the modern world (they have more guns in which you can shoot yourself) It has been said that homosexuality is because of genes and such, so if that is true you are punishing people for who they are born as, and if that is not true you would be punishing people for their decisions which they are free to make, due to lots of civil rights laws and freedom of choice. People like you should be taxed more for your homophobic bias, which causes riots and the like which costs people more. Im not gay but i have friends that are, and you know what? They are people too!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, while we're at it... Let's make those gosh darn black folk get their own bathrooms and drinking fountains again.

Sound a bit prejudiced?

Yeah... thought so...
I agree entirely with you

You want me to find someone who opposes the right of homosexual couples to get married, and knows which end of the foil to grasp in a debate....? :eek:



Should I single handedly bring about world peace while I'm at it.....? :rolleyes: ;)
hmm, point taken. very well, continue, with my blessings...just do try to be gentle with the poor cherub.

Hey, while we're at it... Let's make those gosh darn black folk get their own bathrooms and drinking fountains again.

Sound a bit prejudiced?

Yeah... thought so...
as i pointed out earlier on the thread, homophobes are no different than racists. our children's children will look back on homophobes the way we look back on Jim Crow. we will be embarassed when they ask us, "Daddy, how could people think stuff like that?" we will be ashamed as we are forced to explain how ignorance and fear were allowed to dictate law. and we will be thankful that those children will be able to grow up in a society where love and marriage are about more than penis + vagina = MORAL.

I did reply, and I dont appreciate people taking a reply to someone else as one they think they can answer too using the same quotes, make up your own or fuck off.Mate you can just go to hell, I've got no time for people like you who want to label people with their pretensious insults, and then carp on that their the only ones trying to debate, this is my my last response to you, your ignored like you should be.
Im not going to waste my precious time with an unpleasant and nasty little imbecile like yourself.
Good riddance.Oh for godsake bugger off.
Blakes 7, if you can't remain civil, find yourself another place to argue.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Im gay, and im damn proud. I have been for 7 1/2 years of my life. Who cares if one man loves another man. Of course lots of str8 guys love it when lesbians are around, but because a man and a man are together str8 guys dont like it. But the ladys love it. WHey all the fussin then?? Its my life, im not hurting you, and if you dont like it, you dont have to be around. Go gay marriages. Supporting it all the way.

Ive noticed that all the support are from the younger generation, My generation. All the older people are not for it. They dont except change as willing. us younger generations are more for it, but our voice is over looked.

Blakes 7, if you can't remain civil, find yourself another place to argue.
~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Sorry, I'll tone it right down.

as i pointed out earlier on the thread, homophobes are no different than racists. our children's children will look back on homophobes the way we look back on Jim Crow. we will be embarassed when they ask us, "Daddy, how could people think stuff like that?" we will be ashamed as we are forced to explain how ignorance and fear were allowed to dictate law. and we will be thankful that those children will be able to grow up in a society where love and marriage are about more than penis + vagina = MORAL.
Your really something, I doupt your childrens children will even remember any of this with little more than boredom, to compare black people in the old South being whipped to death and forced to work for no money, and bring their children up as fresh property for their 'massa' to homosexuals today, being allowed to do the same as everyone else except being denied marriage in Church or raising children rights is too extreme to really even take seriously.
Honestly get a fresh view on the prioritys here, because yours, like many others like minded are too tunnel visioned, without any thought to who they may offend with them.

lol, talk about a battle of wits with an unarmed man...P&S, have you no sense of sportsmanship? find yourself an opponent who at least knows which end of the foil to grasp! :)

How original, dont you have the imagination to come up with at least one of your own insults, instead of always relying on other peoples to make yourself look witty?
Spare me please, your tedious and dull at the best of times.

VVit dosen't really matter. ^^

Quoted, bolded, italicized, and underlined for emphasis.

Leviticus 18:22 is all the justification I need to deny Gays the right to marry! Hell, we should be applying all of the book of Leviticus to our lives - that way we'll be making tents of the Lords Presence, casting goats out into the desert to absolve our sins, and free of the sinful practice of shaving our beards. Women will be ritually unclean for 98% of their life too. Yeah, that'll put those wenches in their place. :mad:

If Gays start getting married, they'll be stealing a sacred icon from good, god-fearing people like us. Next thing you know it, they'll be stalking the streets, spreading their Gay-rays and converting our childeren to their own sick lifestyle. :mad: :mad:

The mere thought of it is so sickening it makes me want to cry...in a manly, god fearing, heterosexual way of course. :mad: :mad: :mad:


(P.S. This is a joke, dumbass :D )

You want me to find someone who opposes the right of homosexual couples to get married, and knows which end of the foil to grasp in a debate....? :eek:



Should I single handedly bring about world peace while I'm at it.....? :rolleyes: ;)
Oh, yes, everyone who doesn't share your point of view MUST be a lackwit. Megalomaniac much?

Your really something, I doupt your childrens children will even remember any of this with little more than boredom, to compare black people in the old South being whipped to death and forced to work for no money, and bring their children up as fresh property for their 'massa' to homosexuals today, being allowed to do the same as everyone else except being denied marriage in Church or raising children rights is too extreme to really even take seriously.
Honestly get a fresh view on the prioritys here, because yours, like many others like minded are too tunnel visioned, without any thought to who they may offend with them.
It is you who should try getting the right perspective instead of trying to ridicule Bottle. Maybe you might notice that she talks of racists, not slavers. You know, like in the "seperate but equal times", with blacks as free, but "not quite human" second-class citizens.
But it is of course easier to assume than actually read up on what someone else said. So try defuting the correct argument instead of playing the righteous infuriation tune and doging the issue at hand at the same time.

How original, dont you have the imagination to come up with at least one of your own insults, instead of always relying on other peoples to make yourself look witty?
Spare me please, your tedious and dull at the best of times.
And yet she "pwnes" you :D

as i pointed out earlier on the thread, homophobes are no different than racists. our children's children will look back on homophobes the way we look back on Jim Crow. we will be embarassed when they ask us, "Daddy, how could people think stuff like that?" we will be ashamed as we are forced to explain how ignorance and fear were allowed to dictate law. and we will be thankful that those children will be able to grow up in a society where love and marriage are about more than penis + vagina = MORAL.


I couldn't agree more... Though I'd tell my grandchildren, if I ever have children to have them. That not everyone back then was a homophobe, and that I considered the homophobes to be worthless waste of human life back then. And that Holland already had gay marriage at that time, along with a few other countries. And I'll tell them all about Bush... And how before him the United States, that big blotch of land west of Europe, actually was a really powerful nation back before he and his ilk descended upon it. And so forth. And that the last family member to have anything remotely resembling homophobia in OUR family was my grandfather, who was merely uncomfortable around them. And didn't hate them or think they should be obstructed or persecuted. (And being uncomfortable around homosexuals, whilst definitly regretable, and ignorant. And if possible, to be combatted (if gently so, so as not to induce greated discomfort. Its just that people can learn to get used to things.) I don't consider true homophobia. (or at least not the kind that makes my blood burn.) which I consider persecution and obstruction)

Homophobes of the persecuting variety, as a bisexual, I think ye to be worthless. I think the world is better off with you and your ilk dead. I'm not going to buy a gun and hunt you down, but if they'd ask me to press the button to destroy all of you, just like you would for us, I'd press it. If I can kill one or more of you and get away with it, don't think I won't take the chance, just like you would. And I'll spit upon your 'legacy' when I am old. Along with the rest of the world who in time will see you for the disgusting trash you are. I regret having to share this beautiful world with hateful abominations such as homophobes.

After all... its the homophobes that would like me dead, beaten up, opressed and what not more. How else should I feel about them?

Oh, yes, everyone who doesn't share your point of view MUST be a lackwit. Megalomaniac much?

No, surely there must be someone inteliigent and capable of real debate who does not share out viewpoint--we've just yet to meet him or her.

Your really something, I doupt your childrens children will even remember any of this with little more than boredom, to compare black people in the old South being whipped to death and forced to work for no money, and bring their children up as fresh property for their 'massa' to homosexuals today, being allowed to do the same as everyone else except being denied marriage in Church or raising children rights is too extreme to really even take seriously.
Honestly get a fresh view on the prioritys here, because yours, like many others like minded are too tunnel visioned, without any thought to who they may offend with them.
Jim Crow does not mean slaves. It means the seperate but equal laws that the civils rights movement over turned. There is a direct corrleation between the denial of rights to blacks back then and the denial of rights to gays today. Its hardly the same thing, but the similarities are too great to ignore.

i concur!

Comparing the actions of various animal species to the social behaviour of humans is an extemely flawed method. The same "sex monkeys" you talk about eat thier own faeces - would you recommend we give that a try too?

Good point. I'm just suggesting it's natural, not some freakish thing people choose to do. Although eating poo isn't, so I don't know why it sounds more logical... hmm...

I don't really think this is a debate. A debate is generally a two-sided thing. This one seems horribly skewed to one side due to an overwhelming amount of evidence, common sense and general logic.

Personally I can't see the argument here at all.

don't you people ever get bored of this tired crap?

by you people i refer to those people on this board who KEEP repeating these threads.

get out, get a life, and get your head out of your own backside. we don't like you, don't care what you think, and what's more we are mostly doing fine without your opinions. you are the reason some people like me KILL THEMSELVES. you make us ashamed of who we are, well guess what?

not anymore.

I don't really think this is a debate. A debate is generally a two-sided thing. This one seems horribly skewed to one side due to an overwhelming amount of evidence, common sense and general logic.

Personally I can't see the argument here at all.

Throughout the history of Western society, Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman.. weather it be for political reasons, economic reasons, love, or social acceptance what have you.. why then are we going to redefine what has been true for a thousand years because those who are excluded feel ... left out.. if this is simply about government INCENTIVES which are given to married couples.. i would rather see those incentives recinded then have marriage redefined by a minority group. Those incentives are not rights we are suppose to have but bonuses on a system the government feels is right to propagate.

And yes.. to proclaim the right to marriage is an unailable right is correct, and this is why the supreme court upheld it.. however, as far as ive seen, the tradtional meaning of marriage, and the meaning which the supreme court has took into consideration is the same.. the right of marriage between a man and woman. So even homosexuals have the inaliable right to be married.. just not to someone of the same sex. There can be no denial those advocating gay marriage are seeking to redefine marriage.

As a concervative I am wholy against any move to break with thousands of years of tradition soley to apease a vast minority of a population without irrefutable undeniable need and cause. And the case is not made here..

Throughout the history of Western society, Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman.. weather it be for political reasons, economic reasons, love, or social acceptance what have you.. why then are we going to redefine what has been true for a thousand years because those who are excluded feel ... left out.. if this is simply about government INCENTIVES which are given to married couples.. i would rather see those incentives recinded then have marriage redefined by a minority group. Those incentives are not rights we are suppose to have but bonuses on a system the government feels is right to propagate.

And yes.. to proclaim the right to marriage is an unailable right is correct, and this is why the supreme court upheld it.. however, as far as ive seen, the tradtional meaning of marriage, and the meaning which the supreme court has took into consideration is the same.. the right of marriage between a man and woman. So even homosexuals have the inaliable right to be married.. just not to someone of the same sex. There can be no denial those advocating gay marriage are seeking to redefine marriage.

As a concervative I am wholy against any move to break with thousands of years of tradition soley to apease a vast minority of a population without irrefutable undeniable need and cause. And the case is not made here..


you and your tradition can go hang.

YOUR tradition is MY enslavement, and I at least will not tolerate it any longer.

Throughout the history of Western society, Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman.. weather it be for political reasons, economic reasons, love, or social acceptance what have you.. why then are we going to redefine what has been true for a thousand years because those who are excluded feel ... left out.. if this is simply about government INCENTIVES which are given to married couples.. i would rather see those incentives recinded then have marriage redefined by a minority group. Those incentives are not rights we are suppose to have but bonuses on a system the government feels is right to propagate.

And yes.. to proclaim the right to marriage is an unailable right is correct, and this is why the supreme court upheld it.. however, as far as ive seen, the tradtional meaning of marriage, and the meaning which the supreme court has took into consideration is the same.. the right of marriage between a man and woman. So even homosexuals have the inaliable right to be married.. just not to someone of the same sex. There can be no denial those advocating gay marriage are seeking to redefine marriage.

As a concervative I am wholy against any move to break with thousands of years of tradition soley to apease a vast minority of a population without irrefutable undeniable need and cause. And the case is not made here..
Throughout history marriage has been re-defined many times. In some part of the world the husband can have as many wives as he want. It's their traditionnal definition of marriage. Who's to say your definition is THE definition. If we go by traditionnal definition, theirs has been around a lot longer than the one man-one woman. Stop using the traditionnal argument because it holds no water.

As a catholic, I am for homosexual marriage although it must be understood that the Catholic Church is against it and that you will never be able to wed in our churches. But I'm all for a secular ceremony to join two persons who love each other.

To deny homosexuals the right to marry their partner while letting them marry the opposite sex is an aberation on what marriage is supposed to convey: that two people love each other. And you wonder why the divorce rate is so high :rolleyes:

Substantive?

But anyway, I gave you proof in which there was no evidence of these insects feeling sexual pleasure during copulation, that the act is merely instinctive, not one of lust.
It was further backed up by another poster with qualifications in Science, need I go on?


Believe it or not dearie, that wasn't what you were being asked to prove. You claimed that male insects allowed themselves to be eaten out of a noble desire to have the species continue. You were asked to provide proof that insects understand the concept of sacrifice and nobility. Far as I am into the thread you have failed to do so.

Throughout the history of Western society, Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman.. weather it be for political reasons, economic reasons, love, or social acceptance what have you.. why then are we going to redefine what has been true for a thousand years because those who are excluded feel ... left out.. if this is simply about government INCENTIVES which are given to married couples.. i would rather see those incentives recinded then have marriage redefined by a minority group. Those incentives are not rights we are suppose to have but bonuses on a system the government feels is right to propagate.

And yes.. to proclaim the right to marriage is an unailable right is correct, and this is why the supreme court upheld it.. however, as far as ive seen, the tradtional meaning of marriage, and the meaning which the supreme court has took into consideration is the same.. the right of marriage between a man and woman. So even homosexuals have the inaliable right to be married.. just not to someone of the same sex. There can be no denial those advocating gay marriage are seeking to redefine marriage.

As a concervative I am wholy against any move to break with thousands of years of tradition soley to apease a vast minority of a population without irrefutable undeniable need and cause. And the case is not made here..


And yet Christians stole it from traditions that lasted thousands of years before their inception and made it their own … why did they do such?

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


Shove your words up your ass.

Homosexuality, is not a disease nor a choice. It is something that is there when you are born and you cannot control it. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Or have you never walked that far and are afraid of blisters?



Before 1967 a black could not marry a white, it was considered immoral and an atrocity.

Shove your words up your ass.

Homosexuality, is not a disease nor a choice. It is something that is there when you are born and you cannot control it. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Or have you never walked that far and are afraid of blisters?


Guys, about the "choice or not" issue...

I know it's been beaten to death already, but here goes again:

Those of you who think it's a choice, please do this little experiment.

1- Turn around and try to find a moderately attractive person of the same gender than you.
2- For a few seconds, concentrate on his/her ass, crotch, or breasts.
3- Try to imagine yourself having hot gay sex with that person and loving it.
4- Chose to get turned on by that idea.
5- If you have a boner or feel nice down there, you've proved it's a choice. Or that you're bisexual and didn't know it. Otherwise, you're screwed and it's not a choice. Now stop spouting nonsense about other people choosing who they're attracted to.