NationStates Jolt Archive

Having opinions is all well and good, but presenting opinions as if they were facts makes for problematic situations. Instead of "that's the way it is", it would be better to say "that's the way I see it". Attempting to make one's views into an absolute, especially in such a controversial and heated subject, often leads to an inflamed argument. You're right, but then again, since this is a web forum, "That's the way I see it" is pretty much a necessary and implied caveat. And as I said, I do think those elements of human nature are pretty much a fact. And hey, the UN agrees with me. ;)But, as you say, agree to disagree. I think it's rather rare for anyone to actually change their views on a web forum, but debating is just too fun. :)Yes, it is, isn't it. :)

laugh, actually most of them have admitted to being in gay relationships at one time or another in their life.
Sees a pattern forming here...

False.

Either prove it with a reliable source or admit you made that up.

False.

Either prove it with a reliable source or admit you made that up.
He wont (tried that) see if he even comes back after the 24 hour cool off be interesting to see his view on posts (if he can just keep from telling me to kill myself)

I see the Asians taking over completely around fifty years or so from now, after ashort and deadly conflict with the middle east. Western civilisation will be remembered more for the great centurys of learning and history it bought into the world, not the short, corrupt and stagnent sad end it came to, in its last century.
What has any of this got to do with homosexuality?

Gay marriage for one, and in a nutshell to answer all your questions, I believe its wrong, and thats the only answer you will ever get.
Whatever happened to individual liberties?

laugh, actually most of them have admitted to being in gay relationships at one time or another in their life.
Sees a pattern forming here...
What has this got to do with gay marriage?

Segregation was a result of slavery, gays have never been slaves because their gay, so why should they consider themselves to be segregated.
Except for gay black people.

Because any proof found would be either hidden or shouted down by the gay lobbys as discrimination.
Paranoia, eh? I suspect this "proof" doesn't exist. If it did it would be on the internet, which is a free speech zone.

Why should that surprise you?
Try and say anything against the gay movement in western society, go on just try it.
The rest of the world watches on with amusement, and a growing sense of disgust and disinterest.
The disgust is at the wave of politicised homophobia sweeping through America.

So your saying all of Asia, Africa, South America and the middle east have given gays full equality under their laws, if you care to visit some of these places you will find nothing could be further from the truth, and it is they that look apon the west with growing disgust.
You think that Africa and Asia should be our models of morality?

I dont agree with homos in the armed forces, so what? You telling me I cant have this opinion makes you stupid and ignorant, if your caught in the act of being a homosexual in the armed forces you should be instantly discharged.

And I think ignorant bigots who would jeopardize our national security to futher their own prejudices are anti-American traitors, so what?

If you are caught trying to discharge a good soldier because you have personal issues, you should be court-martialed and imprisoned prior to dishonorable discharge.

In the middle of reading but heres an eassy for you guys to read on genetics of male homosexuality though genetics is like most phenotypes which are on a spectrum i,e height there are enviromental aspects as well prenatal and posnal.


Is male homosexuality genetically predetermined?

Human sexuality is variable. As it shows variance, we can investigate this and use the information we find to learn more about the general process, in this case the general process of sexuality. Though there is little argument that homosexuality is at least partially biological, there is must controversy as to the source of this biological influence and the degree to which it determines sexuality. Most of the research carried out thus far has been on male homosexuality so in my essay I shall concentrate on that.

The way a genetic link is initially investigated is through twin studies. Early studies showed a 100% concordance rate among MZ twins and a 20% concordance rate in MZ twins. Though these studies were flawed they encouraged Hamer et al (1993) to investigate. Hammer recruited 114 homosexual families through a outpatient HIV clinic and advertisement in homophilic press. These men were self reported homosexual and Hamer used the Kinsey scale to rate them and their relatives, with >90% identifying as Kinsey 5 or 6 whereas >90% of their non-homosexual relatives identified as 0 or 1. They determined the background rate of homosexuliaty to be 2%. The highest rate of concordance was found among brother who shared a 13.5% likelihood of being gay. Maternal uncles and the sons of maternal aunts also had a rate of concordance significantly higher then the background rate (approximately 7.5%). Fathers and other paternal relatives showed rates close to the background rates.

This lead Hamer to conclude that the gene for homosexuality lay on the X chromosome, and thus, was passed on only through maternal lines. He preformed DNA linkage analysis on the X-chromosomes of 40 pairs of homosexual brother and their mothers and other siblings if available. The outcome of the experiment was the detection of a linkage between self-reported homosexual orientation and markers in the distant portion of Xq28. Of the 40 pairs of brothers, 33 were concordant for all markers within this region.

Obviously, these results are very significant and were mat by the scientific and general community alike with scepticism, however, follow up studies have suggested that the link may not be as significant as Hamer suggested, if it exists at all. So the question of where the gay gene is if it does exist is still very much open.

However, maybe the question we should ask ourselves before we carry on the search for the homosexual gene is not does it exist but could it exist. All genes must provide some kind of advantage to the bearer or through evolutionary time they become obsolete and drop out of the gene pool. For a gene that confers such negative patterns in terms of reproduction to the people who carry it as homosexuality, it is hard to see how it can also be advantageous.

However, Camperio-Ciana et al (2004) may have found the answer to this. They surveyed 98 homosexual men and 100 hetrosexual men about the incidence of male homosexuality in their families. There results showed that homosexuals have more relatives on the maternal side as discussed above, and also confirmed the birth order distribution which I shall return to below. However, the most intriguing thing found by the team was that maternal realtives of homosexual men have higher fecundity then maternal relatives of hetrosexual men. This research shows a hereto unexpected advantage to the gene which causes male homosexuality which could allow it to successfully survive in the gene pool. However, this could only account for 14% of the incidence of male homosexuality in the population.

This work can also be challenged. As noted above, in homosexuality, a birth order effect is observed. Consequent children are more likely to be homosexual then first born children and so on. Male cells carry a cell surface marker known as the H-Y antigen. It has been hypothesised that the mother develops an immune response to the H-Y antigen which, when triggered, caused antibodies to travel through the placenta into the brain of the foetus where they interfere with and partially block the sexual orientation centres in the foetuses brain, causing homosexual behaviour (Blanchard & Klassen 1996; Blanchard 1997). This immune response would become stronger with each subsequent generation causing the birth order effect we see in these studies. This could also explain Camperio-Ciani’s results. Homosexual men would come from larger families because they were statistically more likely to be later children rather then first children. However, Camperio-Caini anticipated this and looked at the fecundity of women who’s first male child was homosexual. These women also showed higher fecundity.

A combination of these two findings can explain approximately 21% of the incidence of male homosexuality in the population according to Camperio-Caini. However, these are not the only theories proposed.

In his book “Adam’s curse”, Bryan Sykes talks about the homosexual gene and how it can be inherited through the generations. If the gene were carried on the X-chromosome, it would still be subject to selection pressure since the x-chromosome can be passed on equally well through the male and the female. However, if the gene were passed on through the mitochondria, it would not experience this. The mitochondria are passed down maternally only so, to a mitochondria, to end up in a male body is a dead end. Sykes proposes that the gene for homosexuality is carried in the mitochondria and that this allows it to become prevalent in the population. He suggested male homosexuality is a failed attempt by the mitochondria to kill of the male embryo. To support this he looked back in Hamer’s figures and observed that the maternal grandparents of homosexual men had more daughters then sons. Did they succeed where their daughters had failed?

There is some compelling evidence that male homosexualty may have a genetic link and it is possible that at least a percentage of the incidence of homosexuality is genetically linked. Though it originally seems implausible, there is evidence for male homosexuality being favourable in some way to the mother and thus being viable in evolutionary terms. However, it is important to realise there is also compelling evidence for psychological factors in homosexuality and that though genetics may compose a part of the picture, it is not the full image when it comes to male homosexuality.

REFERENCES
Blanchard, R. (1997). Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females. A. Rev. Sex. Res. 8, 27-67
Blanchard, R. & Kalssen, R. (1996). H-Y antigens and homosexuality in men.J. Thero. Biol. 185, 373-378
Camperio-Ciani, A., Corna, F. & Capiluppi, C., (2004). Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecunfity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 2217-2221
Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnunson, V. L., Hu, N. & Pattatucci, A. M. L. (1993). A linkage between DNA Markers on the X chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation. Science 261, 321-327
Sykes, B. (2003). The Gay Gene revisited. In Adam’s Curse, pp. 311-334. Corgi Books, Great Britain

note this was placed when i was still reading the same old agument of no genetical evidence for homosexulity



_________________________________________________________________

no matter how hard people try they still havent found a way to offend or insult me I lack the common sense

And I think ignorant bigots who would jeopardize our national security to futher their own prejudices are anti-American traitors, so what?

If you are caught trying to discharge a good soldier because you have personal issues, you should be court-martialed and imprisoned prior to dishonorable discharge.

There are plenty of gay people in the military. Always have been. It wasn't until Clinton wrote an "order" that a lot of the leeway in keeping them in disappeared.

Until that point, commanders were at liberty to ignore the presence of gay personnel (and often did so, unless you had the occasional bigot).

The "order" removed all discretion from the commander. Resulting in the largest exodus of gay people from service in our history.

I have personally served with many gay soldiers, and I have found them to be fine soldiers - I was glad to have served with them in combat.

People who think that gay people are disruptive to morale need to have their heads examined.

lets try to make up more irrelevant names which could take the place of democracy!!!.....

Um.

Perhaps you should study a bit more about our political system before you accuse others of making up "irrelevant names."

"Republic" "social contract" and the Constitution are not exactly irrelevant names nor make up by Tekania.

You see we have this thing called the Constitution.

Here (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) is a copy.

Here (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution.html) are images of the original, if you are really skeptical.

The Constitution is the foundation of our system of government. It is the supreme law of the land.

Feel free to look for the word "democracy" anywhere in it.

On the other hand, Article IV, Section 4 states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

Every State in the United States is a Republic. The United States itself is a Republic.

If you want further evidence that we are not a pure democracy but rather are a democratic Republic, you may wish to peruse The Federalist Papers (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm).

The Federalist Papers are eighty-five essays written by "Publius" that appeared in New York newspapers supporting the ratification of the new Constitution between 1787 and 1788. They were collected into 2 volumes and sent to other states in the hope they would favorable influence ratifying conventions. The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. You may note these were leading authors of the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers (as with other writings by the Founding Fathers) make it clear that the new system of government is a Republic and not a pure democracy. Federalist 10, 39, 51 are good examples.

As for "social contract," you should make yourself familiar with the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, and John Rawls. For a short explanation, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) is one from Wikipedia. John Locke's work was extremely influential on our Founding Fathers. Again, the concept of a social contract is ubiquitous in their writings.

They were proved wrong with a war and the worlds industry gradually necessitating no need for slavery. dont bring any great morality into this issue, because there is none. Slavery was a necessity, the worlds industry becoming more advanced reduced the need for it. Blacks made the best slaves because they were strong physically,but unfortunately for them unorganised and backward, therefore easily caught, too bad if you cant accept that, but thats just how it was. Slavery came to an end because of advanced mechanics in industry, not because of some great moral enligtenment on the world.
If the world falls into another dark age, and industry and technology is lost, then slavery will come back, as an economic necessity and the first ones to be used in this way will be the blacks for given reasons above, you mighten like this or disagree with it, I dont myself, but thats just how it is.

This is why gay rights have got nothing to do with slavery.

Racism, ignorance, and homophobia! Oh, my!

BTW, skippy, look up "segregation" and "slavery" among your many other failings is a lack of understanding of the difference.

I dont agree with homos in the armed forces, so what? You telling me I cant have this opinion makes you stupid and ignorant, if your caught in the act of being a homosexual in the armed forces you should be instantly discharged.

Considering that you are a homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual/asexual person whether you have sex or not, what would you consider "the act of being a homosexual" to be? Breathing?

Mutated Sea Bass, do you like to watch porn? If so, what kind of porn do you like to watch?

(To refresh your memory, the difference is that the discrimination against race was motivated by contingent political and social issues, while the discrimination against same-sex unions is motivated by the core definition of marriage. This is where you say "Haha, you have a feeble understanding of history, the definition of marriage has changed a buncha times throughout history!" and this is where I reply "Yes, but there are still a few core elements which never change, and girl+boy is one!")

Incorrect. There has been more than one culture in which marriage was an institution between two people.

The reason why there can be no gay marriage (besides the Bible) is that families are the building blocks of any viable society. Promoting same-sex unions as somehow equivalent to marriage would deteriorate family and, ultimately, society as a whole.

I call bullshit.

And why do societies only work with families based on girl+boy? Because it is in the human nature that things work this way. It is how we are, and it is how we work.

You have just contradicted yourself. If being homosexual is not against human nature (and it isn't), then specifically basing a family unit around a male and female pairing is not how we are or how we work. It is how some of us are and how some of us work. Interestingly enough, it is the same in the animal kingdom in animals which form pairings.

As far as a more US-centric argument goes, well, isn't America a Christian country? Sure, you have the separation of church and State, but the separation of church and State isn't the same thing as the separation of religion and the State. Separation of church and State only means that the State doesn't endorse nor fund any specific religion, but that doesn't change the fact that America was built by Christians on Christian values. I've pointed out earlier that law, to an extent, promotes a society's moral values. And, as I'm sure you're aware, gay marriage isn't exactly highest on the list of what Christianity endorses.

For someone who claims to know a lot about law, you seem to have missed the fact that treaties are the supreme law of the land (under the Constitution). Look up the Treaty of Tripoli.

There are plenty of gay people in the military. Always have been. It wasn't until Clinton wrote an "order" that a lot of the leeway in keeping them in disappeared.

Until that point, commanders were at liberty to ignore the presence of gay personnel (and often did so, unless you had the occasional bigot).

The "order" removed all discretion from the commander. Resulting in the largest exodus of gay people from service in our history.

I have personally served with many gay soldiers, and I have found them to be fine soldiers - I was glad to have served with them in combat.

People who think that gay people are disruptive to morale need to have their heads examined.

Thank you. Hopefully others will listen to your knowledge.

And I agree the Don't Ask, Don't Tell order was wrong.

For someone who claims to know a lot about law, you seem to have missed the fact that treaties are the supreme law of the land (under the Constitution). Look up the Treaty of Tripoli.

The key word here is "claims." Rather silly claim, at that. :)

The Cat-Tribe, I have neither the time nor the endurance to keep up with your voluminous arguements. Furthermore, you apparently did not acknowledge (or perhaps read) that my position has changed. More familiarity with the issues and factors involved has changed my position to accepting the basic idea of gay-unions, but still opposing the methods.

The history of these movements has been to take things a step too far, rather than actually seeking equality. Ethnic and feminist movements being prime examples.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....


Hmm, isn't that funny...

I could have sworn all those Christian Reconstructionists/Revisionists told me that the United States was founded upon Christian "values".... Oh yeah. I know... Maybe they were lying!

Considering this treaty was signed by very notable persons, like George Washington, John Adams, Joel Barlow, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and a host of others who were very much involved with the founding of this nation and the principles by which it stands... You think that if it were founded upon Christianity, they would have had some aversion to this remark in an official legally binding treaty they enter into with another nation, and to which full power of law is ascribed to by Constitutional authority.

Sorry to burst the Reconstructionists bubble... But the United States was founded by several persons... Most of which did not ascribe to the same religious convictions... The central tenet is that religion play little part in government as possible... It wasn't just merely "no state churches" they were aiming at... They were die hard against any government involvement codifying religious doctrines....

If you think you have a right to involve religion in the codification of marrital laws; then I should have a right to place my own religious viewpoints into a codification of baptismal laws, or communion laws. If we can legislate marriage, why not legislate communion or baptism... Most people of "faith" would automatically see the danger in this... I'm sure all the baptists would love a presbyterian/reformed/lutheran/catholic concept of communion or baptism.... Why is it they cannot see the dangers of applying this same to marriage?

I'm a Christian... I'm a heterosexual.... So why do I defend the rights of homosexuals towards this? Because I recognize the danger to my own beliefs that this can pose to my own religious liberties. That legislating my religion is not the purpose of my religion... And the belief that it is, is in fact a denial of my responsibility as a christian.... That if I am to keep precedent from being used against me, I must fight that precedent as an American and as a Christian.... I must defend the liberties of others, to keep my own liberty secure....

The Cat-Tribe, I have neither the time nor the endurance to keep up with your voluminous arguements. Furthermore, you apparently did not acknowledge (or perhaps read) that my position has changed. More familiarity with the issues and factors involved has changed my position to accepting the basic idea of gay-unions, but still opposing the methods.

I read your assertion that your position had changed. You were terminally vague as to how.

Weak support for the basic concept of "gay-unions, but still opposing the methods" is still a position of discrimination. Until you are willing to grant everyone equal protection under the laws, your change in position is insufficient.

I am glad your position is moving in the right direction. Someday it may even approach endorsement of liberty, equal protection, and equal opportunity. That would be nice.

The history of these movements has been to take things a step too far, rather than actually seeking equality. Ethnic and feminist movements being prime examples.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

Is that pithy enough for you, skippy?

Um.

Perhaps you should study a bit more about our political system before you accuse others of making up "irrelevant names."

"Republic" "social contract" and the Constitution are not exactly irrelevant names nor make up by Tekania.

You see we have this thing called the Constitution.

Here (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) is a copy.

Here (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution.html) are images of the original, if you are really skeptical.

The Constitution is the foundation of our system of government. It is the supreme law of the land.

Feel free to look for the word "democracy" anywhere in it.

On the other hand, Article IV, Section 4 states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

Every State in the United States is a Republic. The United States itself is a Republic.

If you want further evidence that we are not a pure democracy but rather are a democratic Republic, you may wish to peruse The Federalist Papers (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm).

The Federalist Papers are eighty-five essays written by "Publius" that appeared in New York newspapers supporting the ratification of the new Constitution between 1787 and 1788. They were collected into 2 volumes and sent to other states in the hope they would favorable influence ratifying conventions. The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. You may note these were leading authors of the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers (as with other writings by the Founding Fathers) make it clear that the new system of government is a Republic and not a pure democracy. Federalist 10, 39, 51 are good examples.

As for "social contract," you should make yourself familiar with the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, and John Rawls. For a short explanation, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) is one from Wikipedia. John Locke's work was extremely influential on our Founding Fathers. Again, the concept of a social contract is ubiquitous in their writings.
clearly you missed my point.

I'm a Christian... I'm a heterosexual.... So why do I defend the rights of homosexuals towards this? Because I recognize the danger to my own beliefs that this can pose to my own religious liberties. That legislating my religion is not the purpose of my religion... And the belief that it is, is in fact a denial of my responsibility as a christian.... That if I am to keep precedent from being used against me, I must fight that precedent as an American and as a Christian.... I must defend the liberties of others, to keep my own liberty secure....
Huzzah! Bravo, Tekania!

That sounds like speeh material. We should nominate you for some kind of award or something. Or for president. You just became one of my favorite Christians.

"I like your Christ. But I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike their Christ."
--Gandhi

clearly you missed my point.

Really?

Pray tell ...

Or you could cut your losses. Up to you.

Really?

Pray tell ...

Or you could cut your losses. Up to you.
if i say that its a federal republic, a democratic republic, a constitutional democracy, a constitutional republic, a union of republics, or anything else, it makes no difference. the fact that you chose to say "social contract" seemed fairly arbitrary and pointless to me. and if you notice the other 3 posts in which people tried to come up with names like that and the above, youd notice it was a critique of them all and how pointless they were.

but anyway lets all try to digress even more!

marriage has nothing to do with religion. if i am over 18, i can go to a judge with a consenting (sober) woman and get married. where does religion come in? no where. i also noticed someone said that civil unions existed and that gay people just wanted to change the name. this makes no sense as it only exists in Vermont and does not give the same rights as far as i know. (anyone know for sure?)

marriage has nothing to do with religion. if i am over 18, i can go to a judge with a consenting (sober) woman and get married. where does religion come in? no where. i also noticed someone said that civil unions existed and that gay people just wanted to change the name. this makes no sense as it only exists in Vermont and does not give the same rights as far as i know. (anyone know for sure?)

Civil unions in Vermont do not give the same rights as marriage. Even if they did give all of the rights of marriage under Vermont law (which I don't think they do), it would not be recognized by the federal government (or by other states) and thus would not be the same.

My boyfriend and I have joked about moving to Vermont and suing to get a civil union, then suing that it isn't really equal at all - just to stir things up a bit.

Vermont Civil Union statute grants all rights associated in the same with the Vermont Marriage statutes... The only problem is that the "Civil Union" is not recognized at a government level... Though all US states must recognize the "Civil Union" (as Per Art.IV Sec.2 US Constitution) and all rights associated therewith.

The problem with the idea, though, is it allows other states to deny marrital rights in their own statutes to the couple if they reside in their state... If it were "marriage" they would be forced to apply the couple to their own marriage statutes and associated rights while in residence... And since it isn't "marriage" and the Federal Government does not have its own marriage statute, and it is defined seperate of marriage in the state of Vermont, they are not applicable to rights granted married couples at the federal level... Including dependency.... It's all still discriminatory, granting rights to one couple, while denying them to another... Which is my beef with the whole thing..

if i say that its a federal republic, a democratic republic, a constitutional democracy, a constitutional republic, a union of republics, or anything else, it makes no difference. the fact that you chose to say "social contract" seemed fairly arbitrary and pointless to me. and if you notice the other 3 posts in which people tried to come up with names like that and the above, youd notice it was a critique of them all and how pointless they were.

<sigh>

If you had been following along, then you noticed I wasn't the one that talked about the social contract in the post you raised. That you find the concept "arbitrary and pointless" merely demonstrates that you have not studied political philosophy or the ideals underlying our system of government.

Now you are the one making up names that were not referenced in the discussion. The distinction between a simple democracy where the majority rules and a constitutional republic is rather significant. Or perhaps the Founding Fathers wasted all that time on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The difference was particularly relevant here, where some were making the argument that same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because the majority always rule. They are wrong. Tekania was explaining why. You erroneously chose to make fun of a salient point because you did not understand it.

As I said, you should have cut your losses.

but anyway lets all try to digress even more!

That we are country based on fundamental rights and striving for equal protection of the laws is not a digression. It is the freakin' point!

The history of these movements has been to take things a step too far, rather than actually seeking equality. Ethnic and feminist movements being prime examples.
What? I don't see any real changes to society that give an advantage to women or minority ethnicities in society. There are female or ethnic supremacists at the extreme fringe of all of these movements, but they are out of the mainstream.

That if I am to keep precedent from being used against me, I must fight that precedent as an American and as a Christian.... I must defend the liberties of others, to keep my own liberty secure....
Tekania you have completely the right idea.

Mutated Sea Bass, do you like to watch porn? If so, what kind of porn do you like to watch?

Only perverts watch porn, so no.

Only perverts watch porn, so no.

Yay! I'm a pervert! :p

Only perverts watch porn, so no.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yay! I'm a pervert! :p
Out of curiosity, just how sick are you?

Out of curiosity, just how sick are you?

Compared to what?

Compared to what?

Compared sayyy to your average pervert, are you worse or not as bad?

Compared sayyy to your average pervert, are you worse or not as bad?

Not sure what defines an "average pervert", considering that the very definition of pervert implies deviation from the norm, but...

Let's see, I'm a bisexual guy currently living in a monogamous relationship with a girl, though I am still very fond of both porn (preferably of the gay variety, I find it's usually of higher quality) and masturbation.

Apart from the bisexual thing, I'd say that I'm pretty close to an average guy. So I guess I'm not that much of a pervert.

Not sure what defines an "average pervert", considering that the very definition of pervert implies deviation from the norm, but...

I would assume that the term "average pervert" means something different to everyone. To some, anything other than married missionary position would make you a pervert.

Let's see, I'm a bisexual guy currently living in a monogamous relationship with a girl, though I am still very fond of both porn (preferably of the gay variety, I find it's usually of higher quality) and masturbation.

You really think gay porn is better? Granted, I haven't seen much of either, but what gay porn I have seen was pretty goofy. There was one in particular with like 6 guys and one of them wasn't even touching the bed. But, then again, that was just a gay friend showing porn to all us girls to see if we liked it. He might have purposely picked the goofiest stuff.

You really think gay porn is better? Granted, I haven't seen much of either, but what gay porn I have seen was pretty goofy. There was one in particular with like 6 guys and one of them wasn't even touching the bed. But, then again, that was just a gay friend showing porn to all us girls to see if we liked it. He might have purposely picked the goofiest stuff.

In general I'd say it's better, though there is a lot of weird stuff out there. Basically, I think the difference is that the guys actually seem to enjoy what they do, and girls not so much.

Just my opinion, though.

In general I'd say it's better, though there is a lot of weird stuff out there. Basically, I think the difference is that the guys actually seem to enjoy what they do, and girls not so much.

Just my opinion, though.

I'll second that - apart from the moustache era. Definitely a step backward.

I'll second that - apart from the moustache era. Definitely a step backward.

Ugh, don't remind me. Porno moustaches might be a right that gays actually deserve to lose. (W00t! Way to get back on topic! :) )

Ugh, don't remind me. Porno moustaches might be a right that gays actually deserve to lose. (W00t! Way to get back on topic! :) )

Maybe they can be traded for a better one?

Only perverts watch porn, so no.
Which makes pretty close to a majority of humans perverts :p

Which makes pretty close to a majority of humans perverts :p

Yep. Which means that, actually, the perverts are the people who *don't* watch porn.

Maybe they can be traded for a better one?

Like this one?

http://www.bobandtom.com/gen3/5cover_img/mustache_record.jpg

Oh, maybe you meant rights, not moustaches...

Yep. Which means that, actually, the perverts are the people who *don't* watch porn.
Well maybe not perverts but defiantly “not normal” (I am not sure if anyone has ever actualy done a study on this lol)

Well maybe not perverts but defiantly “not normal” (I am not sure if anyone has ever actualy done a study on this lol)

Some interesting statistics on internet porn:

http://www.familysafemedia.com/pornography_statistics.html

$57.0 billion world-wide - That's a lot of porn...

Some interesting statistics on internet porn:

http://www.familysafemedia.com/pornography_statistics.html

$57.0 billion world-wide - That's a lot of porn...
Just think of their income if internet porn was not so easy to circumnavigate payment …

*whistles* ohh yeah I have HEARD it is easy to circumnavigate payment

Well maybe not perverts but defiantly “not normal” (I am not sure if anyone has ever actualy done a study on this lol)

Whenever a heterosexual male says he's never liked watching porn, I think there's something wrong with him.

Whenever a heterosexual male says he's never liked watching porn, I think there's something wrong with him.
*puts on grisled old man voice and hat*
Yup god gave me the drive to watch naked women and I am going to use it

*puts on grisled old man voice and hat*
Yup god gave me the drive to watch naked women and I am going to use it

When you've seen one naked woman, you want to see the rest of them, no matter how old or horrible they look.

When you've seen one naked woman, you want to see the rest of them, no matter how old or horrible they look.
Ron white “Once you seen one woman naked … you want to see the rest of them” :) lol I love that guy

Yep. Which means that, actually, the perverts are the people who *don't* watch porn.

The saddest part about that statement, is that you probably actually believe it.

Not sure what defines an "average pervert", considering that the very definition of pervert implies deviation from the norm, but...
Let's see, I'm a bisexual guy currently living in a monogamous relationship with a girl, though I am still very fond of both porn (preferably of the gay variety, I find it's usually of higher quality) and masturbation.
Apart from the bisexual thing, I'd say that I'm pretty close to an average guy. So I guess I'm not that much of a pervert.

Enough said.

The saddest part about that statement, is that you probably actually believe it.

Perversion is defined in terms of deviation from the norm. The norm is defined by the society at large. In the society at large, the majority of people [stats provided earlier, go and check] watch or have watched porn.

That means that the norm is "porn". That means, in turn, that deviation from the norm is "no porn". That means, in turn, that the deviants are those who do not watch/look at porn. That means, in turn, that the perverts are those who don't watch/look at porn.

Simple. It's not a matter of "believing" either way.

Enough said.

About what?

Happy people have rights? ;)

Perversion is defined in terms of deviation from the norm. The norm is defined by the society at large. In the society at large, the majority of people [stats provided earlier, go and check] watch or have watched porn.
That means that the norm is "porn". That means, in turn, that deviation from the norm is "no porn". That means, in turn, that the deviants are those who do not watch/look at porn. That means, in turn, that the perverts are those who don't watch/look at porn.
Simple. It's not a matter of "believing" either way.

That is such a crock of shit.
I dont watch porn, so then I am a pervert acording to your theory, talk about calling white black etc what if the person watching porn watches it twenty hrs aday, would you think hes a pervert then, or just more 'normal'?

About what?

I highlighted it Rus.

I highlighted it Rus.

#cough# troll #cough# puppet

That is such a crock of shit.
I dont watch porn, so then I am a pervert acording to your theory, talk about calling white black etc what if the person watching porn watches it twenty hrs aday, would you think hes a pervert then, or just more 'normal'?

Not normal, because that deviates pretty far from the norm. What part of that definition are you having difficulty understanding? Believing all porn-watchers to be perverts, on the other hand, *might* indicate an unhealthily repressed sexuality.

#cough# troll #cough# puppet
#cough# bore #cough# unoriginal

Not normal, because that deviates pretty far from the norm. What part of that definition are you having difficulty understanding? Believing all porn-watchers to be perverts, on the other hand, *might* indicate an unhealthily repressed sexuality.

Ah its your definition, not mine, you seem to believe watching porn indicates normality, whereas I believe it indicates an unhealthy mind.
Do you have any difficulty understanding that?

Ah its your definition, not mine, you seem to believe watching porn indicates normality, whereas I believe it indicates an unhealthy mind.
Do you have any difficulty understanding that?

Understanding, no. Accepting, yes. I can prove that a large number of people, especially men, watch porn. Almost all psychiatrists would say that this is normal, acceptable mental behavior. Can you offer any proof that porn watching indicates mental illness?

Ah its your definition, not mine, you seem to believe watching porn indicates normality, whereas I believe it indicates an unhealthy mind.
Do you have any difficulty understanding that?

Well, since many more people watch various types of porn than don't, your statement indicates that your normality isn't actually "normal". Your beliefs, right or wrong, will lead you to condemn millions as "mentally unhealthy" is that your intention?

What about porn is unhealthy for the mind? That people will watch things they like doing doesn't seem unhealthy to most people, or do you also consider sports fans to be unhealthy in the mind?

Just what do you consider normal? Just how repressed should a person's sexuality be? Should men refrain from looking at women? How far do you take your repression of the drive to have sex? This is an honest question; there are many views on human sexuality and its expression, and it is wrong to completely comdemn one or another as absolutely wrong unless you have a full understanding of the view and its impacts.

Understanding, no. Accepting, yes. I can prove that a large number of people, especially men, watch porn.

Almost all psychiatrists would say that this is normal, acceptable mental behavior. Can you offer any proof that porn watching indicates mental illness?

Yeah I can too, nearly every male I know watches various amounts of it.

Depends I guess, if you watch some and enjoy it, then I would say you have an unhealthy mind, if you watch copius amounts of it weekly or daily then this would indicate obsessiveness, which has been linked to mental illness.

Well, since many more people watch various types of porn than don't, your statement indicates that your normality isn't actually "normal". Your beliefs, right or wrong, will lead you to condemn millions as "mentally unhealthy" is that your intention?


What about porn is unhealthy for the mind? That people will watch things they like doing doesn't seem unhealthy to most people, or do you also consider sports fans to be unhealthy in the mind?


Just what do you consider normal? Just how repressed should a person's sexuality be? Should men refrain from looking at women? How far do you take your repression of the drive to have sex? This is an honest question; there are many views on human sexuality and its expression, and it is wrong to completely comdemn one or another as absolutely wrong unless you have a full understanding of the view and its impacts.

How do you know there are more people who regulary watch porn than not, do you have any proof?
I dont watch it, yeah I used to once, but I saw it for the sickness it is and stopped.

Comparing something, an act of love, thats supposed to be a private act between men and women to a public thing such as sport is ridiculous, as for
people watching sport on TV nonstop, yeah thats pretty unhealthy.

Im not condemning anyone, if anyones condemning it seems to be you, about how dare I speak out against porn, which is flooding our society.
As for saying Im all for repression, that depends on what you think repressed is? Is there any moral limits on your freedom to sexually express yourself, or is it anything goes with you, and if someone doesnt like it, their then repressing you.

How do you know there are more people who regulary watch porn than not, do you have any proof?
I dont watch it, yeah I used to once, but I saw it for the sickness it is and stopped.

Comparing something, an act of love, thats supposed to be a private act between men and women to a public thing such as sport is ridiculous, as for
people watching sport on TV nonstop, yeah thats pretty unhealthy.

Im not condemning anyone, if anyones condemning it seems to be you, about how dare I speak out against porn, which is flooding our society.
As for saying Im all for repression, that depends on what you think repressed is? Is there any moral limits on your freedom to sexually express yourself, or is it anything goes with you, and if someone doesnt like it, their then repressing you.

My wife and I enjoy watching porn while we're making love. We're doing that in private. What right do you have to put any limits on what we do in private?

There are MANY studies that indicate that both men and women watch porn - in fact, the vast majority of men watch it on a regular basis. Unless you're obsessed with watching porn (sort of like obsessed with playing video games to the exclusion of all else), it's not considered to be a psychological problem.

If you don't like porn, you don't have to watch it. But that doesn't give you the right to stop other people from watching it.

My wife and I enjoy watching porn while we're making love. We're doing that in private. What right do you have to put any limits on what we do in private?

There are MANY studies that indicate that both men and women watch porn - in fact, the vast majority of men watch it on a regular basis. Unless you're obsessed with watching porn (sort of like obsessed with playing video games to the exclusion of all else), it's not considered to be a psychological problem.

If you don't like porn, you don't have to watch it. But that doesn't give you the right to stop other people from watching it.
Exactly. It's not like anyone is being forced to watch porn... Condemning people for watching porn, on the other hand...

My wife and I enjoy watching porn while we're making love. We're doing that in private. What right do you have to put any limits on what we do in private?

There are MANY studies that indicate that both men and women watch porn - in fact, the vast majority of men watch it on a regular basis. Unless you're obsessed with watching porn (sort of like obsessed with playing video games to the exclusion of all else), it's not considered to be a psychological problem.

If you don't like porn, you don't have to watch it. But that doesn't give you the right to stop other people from watching it.

Who said Im putting any limits on what you do?

Who said Im stopping other people?

How am I getting this power over what you and your wife do?

I couldnt care if you guys watched porn until your eyes fell out.
Its your problem, not mine.

Who said Im putting any limits on what you do?

Who said Im stopping other people?

How am I getting this power over what you and your wife do?

I couldnt care if you guys watched porn until your eyes fell out.
Its your problem, not mine.
The fact that you think what they do in the privacy of their own home is a problem, is a problem. ;)

Exactly. It's not like anyone is being forced to watch porn... Condemning people for watching porn, on the other hand...

Condemning???
Dont go to extremes :rolleyes:

As for being forced, well Im being forced everytime I walk into a newssagent and have smut put in front of me, with nearly ten thousand different porno mags on display, at kids eyelevel too.

Who said Im putting any limits on what you do?

Who said Im stopping other people?

How am I getting this power over what you and your wife do?

I couldnt care if you guys watched porn until your eyes fell out.
Its your problem, not mine.

By saying it's a problem, when psychologists agree that it is not a problem, makes it an act of repression by you against us.

Condemning???
Dont go to extremes :rolleyes:

As for being forced, well Im being forced everytime I walk into a newssagent and have smut put in front of me, with nearly ten thousand different porno mags on display, at kids eyelevel too.

I haven't seen anything like that here in the US. Perhaps you live in a place like Germany.

The fact that you think what they do in the privacy of their own home is a problem, is a problem. ;)

To you maybe.

Condemning???
Dont go to extremes :rolleyes:

As for being forced, well Im being forced everytime I walk into a newssagent and have smut put in front of me, with nearly ten thousand different porno mags on display, at kids eyelevel too.
Ten thousand? Don't go to extremes. :rolleyes:

And there are no explicit images on covers, and they're generally in wrappers anyway.

"Won't someone please think of the children" - in Mrs Lovejoy voice...

By saying it's a problem, when psychologists agree that it is not a problem, makes it an act of repression by you against us.

Psychologists are the biggest deviants around, as if Im going to put any faith in what they say or think.
And you saying Im repressing you guys by thinking or saying you have a problem, is repressing my free speech.

Holy threadjacking, Batman!

This has gotten waaay off-topic. (I guess I'm to blame for that, too).

My final word in this debate is that while it's okay to believe that porn, as a business, is bad (I have several friends who believe this mainly out of concern for involved women etc), believing people to be perverts or mentally unhealthy simply for watching it is not. Visual sexual stimulation is a normal and healthy occurence, as is masturbation and similar activities.

Ten thousand? Don't go to extremes. :rolleyes:

And there are no explicit images on covers, and they're generally in wrappers anyway.

"Won't someone please think of the children" - in Mrs Lovejoy voice...

Im not, you should see how many are in my local newssagent.

And they have very explicit covers, only half of them are wrapped in plastic.

And yes, think of the impact this has on kids, what do they think of us as Adults, is it any wonder children have no respect for us anymore in general?

Holy threadjacking, Batman!

This has gotten waaay off-topic. (I guess I'm to blame for that, too).

My final word in this debate is that while it's okay to believe that porn, as a business, is bad (I have several friends who believe this mainly out of concern for involved women etc), believing people to be perverts or mentally unhealthy simply for watching it is not. Visual sexual stimulation is a normal and healthy occurence, as is masturbation and similar activities.

Jerry! Jerry! :rolleyes:

Im not, you should see how many are in my local newssagent.

And they have very explicit covers, only half of them are wrapped in plastic.

And yes, think of the impact this has on kids, what do they think of us as Adults, is it any wonder children have no respect for us anymore in general?

You should move to the US. Or stop walking into porn shops.

I haven't seen anything like that here in the US. Perhaps you live in a place like Germany.

Well I commend your countrys laws then on this, whereas in Aussieland, less said the better I guess.

Jerry! Jerry! :rolleyes:

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Holy threadjacking, Batman!

This has gotten waaay off-topic. (I guess I'm to blame for that, too).

My final word in this debate is that while it's okay to believe that porn, as a business, is bad (I have several friends who believe this mainly out of concern for involved women etc), believing people to be perverts or mentally unhealthy simply for watching it is not. Visual sexual stimulation is a normal and healthy occurence, as is masturbation and similar activities.
Very well said. :)

You should move to the US. Or stop walking into porn shops.

No thanks, your countrys too fucked up to live in.
Ah newssagent isnt an Adult shop, well its not meant to be anyway.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Jerry Springer.

Very well said. :)

Pfft

Well I commend your countrys laws then on this, whereas in Aussieland, less said the better I guess.
I'm Aussie, and guess what, I've NEVER been bombarded with porn, even when I'm looking for guitar magazines... MAybe you're secretly attracted by the porn... Don't like it, don't look at it. You'll find it's not hard to ignore.

I'm Aussie, and guess what, I've NEVER been bombarded with porn, even when I'm looking for guitar magazines... MAybe you're secretly attracted by the porn... Don't like it, don't look at it. You'll find it's not hard to ignore.

Im not attracted at all, Im repulsed.

Im not attracted at all, Im repulsed.

But those of us who have no problem with porn don't notice it (unless we're buying...but that's a different story). See the strange thing?

It could be some kind of macabre attraction...

But then again

Pfft
If that's the most intelligent you're gonna get, why bother?

That is such a crock of shit.
I dont watch porn, so then I am a pervert acording to your theory, talk about calling white black etc what if the person watching porn watches it twenty hrs aday, would you think hes a pervert then, or just more 'normal'?


Unless you want to redefine the concept of "deviant" and "perverted" then it is no more a crock of shit than it is a giant caramel flavoured turnip.

You deviate from the norm. That means you are the deviant one, not the norm.

You sound like someone with a lot of issues about yourself. You really shoudl deal with that.

My final word in this debate is that while it's okay to believe that porn, as a business, is bad (I have several friends who believe this mainly out of concern for involved women etc), believing people to be perverts or mentally unhealthy simply for watching it is not. Visual sexual stimulation is a normal and healthy occurence, as is masturbation and similar activities.

Indeed. Even chimpanzees will *pay* for chimp porn.

Well I commend your countrys laws then on this, whereas in Aussieland, less said the better I guess.

Well, you have the right to vote. We don't have porn at every newsstand down at eye level for the kids. But we have a huge amount of porn.

Most porn is sold on the Internet - it's a 200 billion dollar industry now.

As for your kids getting to porn on the Internet, that's a parenting issue.

Im not, you should see how many are in my local newssagent.

And they have very explicit covers, only half of them are wrapped in plastic.

And yes, think of the impact this has on kids, what do they think of us as Adults, is it any wonder children have no respect for us anymore in general?

If people like you didn't try to make a natural occurrence all taboo, it wouldn't have an effect on kids at all. You would simply explain to them that sex is something adults do (when mommy and daddy love each other very much, etc,etc)

Ah its your definition, not mine, you seem to believe watching porn indicates normality, whereas I believe it indicates an unhealthy mind.
Do you have any difficulty understanding that?

Then you lose all basis for your claims.

Normal people - i.e. the bulk of the human population, from which notions of "normality" and "healthy" must be derived - like porn. You don't. That means that you are not normal. That means, unless you are hacving trouble following this, that *you* are the one with an unhealthy mind.

Apparently you are having difficulty understanding that normal is defined not by you but by the society en masse.

How do you know there are more people who regulary watch porn than not, do you have any proof?
I dont watch it, yeah I used to once, but I saw it for the sickness it is and stopped.

See stats link provided upthread.

If people like you didn't try to make a natural occurrence all taboo, it wouldn't have an effect on kids at all. You would simply explain to them that sex is something adults do (when mommy and daddy love each other very much, etc,etc)

Exactly. Porn is defined by its appeal to "prurient interest".

In Saudi Arabia, women are never seen in public, other than clothed head to foot in black cloth. You never see their skin - any of it.

When the men there saw American female soldiers with their sleeves rolled up, the reaction they got was exactly as if a Playboy centerfold model was walking down the street with her clothes off. It excited them tremendously.

Mutated, do you get excited when you see a woman's forearm? Do you think that's pornographic? The Saudi men sure think it is.

To you maybe.

Nope, since you have invoked "normality" as a standard, and yet it is *you* that deviates from the norm.

You are abnormal. You are a sexual deviant.

Well I commend your countrys laws then on this, whereas in Aussieland, less said the better I guess. Umm, I live in Australia and I have no clue what you're on about. There is pornography, sure, but most of it is kept either under the counter or in wrappers and close to the counter so that naughty boys can't sneak a peek at it.

ok, back to the Gay rights topic.

I think that gays should not be discriminated against in the realm of human rights.

However, (I noticed the question of marriage popped up) same sex marriage is not a right.

Stay with me on this for a minute. I personally do not care what goes on in anyone's bedroom but when you bring marriage into the equation it opens a whole new kettle of fish.

Marriage is primarily a religious ceremony. True there are civil marriages but marriage is more important in the religious sphere than the political one.

The biggest problem with making same sex marriage legal is that soon afterwards couples will be sueing churches for not marrying them. Then the Government will come down and we will have a big battle between the "Freedom of Religion" and the "Right" to marriage.

I am afraid of what might happen then. I'm afraid Religion might lose and the govt. would try to force churches to perform marriages that are against everything they stand for. This would lead to huge problems. Upheaval.

Most Religions (Christian and Muslim) agree that homosexuality (the act) is Bad. Just as the agree that promescuity is bad.
Legally they are able to fornicate and perform homosexual acts but they will possibly be kicked out of their respective religion because it goes against the "code of membership". Not because they are descriminating, just because there are rules.

The act is religiously bad. The people are people, so in the political region they should have the right to do whatever in their bedroom. But this cannot be required of Religions.

Marriage has a history of over 6000 years of being a man and a woman. There are always small pockets of deviants from the norm but in essence it is a heterosexual organization and must remain so. For the sake of human rights.

Marriage has a history of over 6000 years
So why should we regulate it by what a 2,000 year old religion says?

religion created marriage.

religion created marriage.
Not the Christian religion.

How do we know if the people who 'created marriage' married same sex couples or not?

Marriage is primarily a religious ceremony. True there are civil marriages but marriage is more important in the religious sphere than the political one.

The gay rights debate is *only* concerned with civil marriage.

The biggest problem with making same sex marriage legal is that soon afterwards couples will be sueing churches for not marrying them. Then the Government will come down and we will have a big battle between the "Freedom of Religion" and the "Right" to marriage.

Bullshit. The civil institution of marriage is separate from the religious institution. The Catholic church won't recognize many marriages, but no one sues them to do so. Why? Because it doesn't matter. If a church only wants to marry blue-eyed people with red hair who were born on a Tuesday, it has that right. However, the justice of the peace cannot deny on such grounds. The same is true of sexuality.

Most Religions (Christian and Muslim) agree that homosexuality (the act) is Bad. Just as the agree that promescuity is bad.

Incorrect. Some Christians and some Muslims think that homosexuality is bad. Others think that love, in any form, is good.

Legally they are able to fornicate and perform homosexual acts but they will possibly be kicked out of their respective religion because it goes against the "code of membership". Not because they are descriminating, just because there are rules.

And that is, has always been, and will always be the right of that church. (Meanwhile, they are discriminating, as is their right). As long as the church is not getting government money, it can discriminate in any way it wishes.

Marriage has a history of over 6000 years of being a man and a woman. There are always small pockets of deviants from the norm but in essence it is a heterosexual organization and must remain so. For the sake of human rights.

Incorrect. More than one culture has accepted and performed marriage rituals with same-sex couples. The fact that your particular version of your particular culture is opposed is irrelevant.

The gay rights debate is *only* concerned with civil marriage.

Incorrect. Some Christians and some Muslims think that homosexuality is bad. Others think that love, in any form, is good.

Incorrect. More than one culture has accepted and performed marriage rituals with same-sex couples. The fact that your particular version of your particular culture is opposed is irrelevant.


dude, you love to contradict people.

I said MOST. and you say SOME. my statement of MOST allows for a SOME, duh.

It is not descrimination when you join a group and do not adhere to the rules of that group and they kick you out. Is it descrimination for the US to revoke citizenship to someone for doing something that merits that? no.

Each institution has rules. Abide by the rules you stay. Don't and you are gone.

It is just like at work. If you break rules at work, you are left unemployed. No discrimination has been performed.

You don't like the rules of one church, employer, govt. too bad, go cry, go find another one.

As for your last statement. Again, you bring out that ONE or a COUPLE of cultures have done this. But in the vast history of the world they are a speck of dust compared to the sheer number of cultures that did not.

And yes the Christian religion did not create marriage. I know. But A religion did. In any group where there is not religion or low morals they have just not cared about being with only one person. Sleeping around was common. Hence they AND the gays do not NEED marriage. They are outside of a socio-religious group.

Gays can have anything else they want. Just not marriage.

dude, you love to contradict people.

I said MOST. and you say SOME. my statement of MOST allows for a SOME, duh.

You said "most religions" and listed all of Christianity and Islam as examples. This was incorrect and did not leave room for the fact that this is not a belief of the religion as a whole, but of only some members.

It is not descrimination when you join a group and do not adhere to the rules of that group and they kick you out. Is it descrimination for the US to revoke citizenship to someone for doing something that merits that? no.

Apparently, you need to look up the word discrimination. It is discrimination. Is it improper discrimination? Of course not.

It is just like at work. If you break rules at work, you are left unemployed. No discrimination has been performed.

No improper discrimination is involved.

As for your last statement. Again, you bring out that ONE or a COUPLE of cultures have done this. But in the vast history of the world they are a speck of dust compared to the sheer number of cultures that did not.

Irrelevant.

And yes the Christian religion did not create marriage. I know. But A religion did.

Impossible to prove. There is evidence for a religious beginning and for a civil beginning.

Meanwhile, civil marriage has its roots in a civil institution. It does not have to meet your particular religious version of marriage.

Meanwhile, it is irrelevant. If there were a legal institution called communion, and it involved giving food to the poor, the Catholics couldn't say "Oh wait! You can't give food to non-Catholics! We invented Communion!" Why? Because the Catholics only have power over the Catholic institution, not the civil one. The same holds true for marriage.

In any group where there is not religion or low morals they have just not cared about being with only one person. Sleeping around was common. Hence they AND the gays do not NEED marriage. They are outside of a socio-religious group.

(a) The civil institution of marriage is very different from the religious one.

(b) Homosexuals do care about being with only one person. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

(c) Homosexuals are outside of your particular socio-religious group, not all such groups.

Gays can have anything else they want. Just not marriage.

That is not for you to decide.

OK.

Before any more of this "marriage has always been one man and one woman," "same-sex marriage is against history," "traditional family" crap starts up again, let me make clear it is utter bullshit.

The History of Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1a.html)
Same-sex marriage in premodern Western cultures (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1b.html)
The history of same-sex marriage in non-Western cultures (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1c.html)
The Survival of Same-Sex Unions in the Modern West (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1d.html)
Gay and Lesbian Families (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/fact3.php)
On Marriage in "Recorded History" (http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html)
How We Live and How We Used to Live (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/education.php#howwelive)
Social and Cultural History of Marriage (http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html)
Does It Make a Difference Whether Children Have Gay or Straight Parents? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/stacey2.php)
Catholic Encyclopedia - History of Marriage (not a friendly source, but it still rebuts some erroneous assumptions) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm)
Did Cradles Always Rock? Or Did Mom Once Not Care? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change13.htm)
Do kids raised by lesbians turn out different? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/stacey3.php)
The History of Marriage as an Institution (http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html)
Does the American Family Have a History? Family Images and Realities (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/mintz1.php)
The Way We Never Were (http://academic.evergreen.edu/c/coontzs/a10.html)
Marriage a Malleable Institution Throughout History (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4426.html)
The marriage hoax: Conservative moralists, alarmed by the divorce rate, want us to return to a Golden Age of Marriage. Too bad it never existed. (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change31.htm)
What Gay Marriage Teaches About the History of Marriage (http://hnn.us/articles/4400.html)
In Search Of A Golden Age (http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC21/Coontz.htm)
Historical Alternatives to Mainstream Marriage (http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2004aug/freedman.html)
The Puritans and Gay Marriage (http://www.common-place.org/vol-04/no-03/talk/)
Nostalgia as Ideology (http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/7/coontz-s.html)
The Hysteria About Gay Marriage: A Minister's Perspective (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/4259.html)

Some of the above is more authoratative than others.

There is much more good scholarship out there, but I didn't want to get all hyper-technical with published papers.

Feel free to dispute the facts presented in these articles. But be prepared with some evidence.

Thats all nice and pretty, but ANYONE can pull whatever they want out of history (or the Bible). The same goes for "scientific studies".

If I cared enough to do five minutes of research I could match you little list with one where all my "evidence" had a conservative bent.

Science, statistics and history are not safe from personal opinions.
Any number of liberal people can "unbiasedly" study a topic but their results will be skewed.
Just as any number of conservative people can "unbiasedly" study a topic but their results will be also skewed.

I don't care about history or tradition. They are only tools for any argument.

It all boils down to opinion. Everything.

And that reminds me, Dempublicents1, I DO get to decide. Or, at least, I get a say in the end decision. Just as you do. We both have one right in common, we can vote.

I do not see marriage as a right but a priviledge, a comtract, not a social institution at all. Civil ceremonies show a good effort but are only secondary to a religious one. (Religious marriages are both Religious and Civil rolled into one package). When I was married at the Temple I was married according to God's law AND the law of the US government. and one man did that. This is how Civil and Religious marriages are connected. Religious marriages are both Civil and Religious. While state marriages are just Civil.

OK.

Before any more of this "marriage has always been one man and one woman," "same-sex marriage is against history," "traditional family" crap starts up again, let me make clear it is utter bullshit.

The History of Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1a.html)
Same-sex marriage in premodern Western cultures (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1b.html)
The history of same-sex marriage in non-Western cultures (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1c.html)
The Survival of Same-Sex Unions in the Modern West (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1d.html)
Gay and Lesbian Families (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/fact3.php)
On Marriage in "Recorded History" (http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html)
How We Live and How We Used to Live (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/education.php#howwelive)
Social and Cultural History of Marriage (http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html)
Does It Make a Difference Whether Children Have Gay or Straight Parents? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/stacey2.php)
Catholic Encyclopedia - History of Marriage (not a friendly source, but it still rebuts some erroneous assumptions) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm)
Did Cradles Always Rock? Or Did Mom Once Not Care? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change13.htm)
Do kids raised by lesbians turn out different? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/stacey3.php)
The History of Marriage as an Institution (http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html)
Does the American Family Have a History? Family Images and Realities (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/mintz1.php)
The Way We Never Were (http://academic.evergreen.edu/c/coontzs/a10.html)
Marriage a Malleable Institution Throughout History (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4426.html)
The marriage hoax: Conservative moralists, alarmed by the divorce rate, want us to return to a Golden Age of Marriage. Too bad it never existed. (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change31.htm)
What Gay Marriage Teaches About the History of Marriage (http://hnn.us/articles/4400.html)
In Search Of A Golden Age (http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC21/Coontz.htm)
Historical Alternatives to Mainstream Marriage (http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2004aug/freedman.html)
The Puritans and Gay Marriage (http://www.common-place.org/vol-04/no-03/talk/)
Nostalgia as Ideology (http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/7/coontz-s.html)
The Hysteria About Gay Marriage: A Minister's Perspective (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/4259.html)

Some of the above is more authoratative than others.

There is much more good scholarship out there, but I didn't want to get all hyper-technical with published papers.

Feel free to dispute the facts presented in these articles. But be prepared with some evidence.


I think I am going to book mark this for later use :)

Thats all nice and pretty, but ANYONE can pull whatever they want out of history (or the Bible). The same goes for "scientific studies".

If I cared enough to do five minutes of research I could match you little list with one where all my "evidence" had a conservative bent.

Science, statistics and history are not safe from personal opinions.
Any number of liberal people can "unbiasedly" study a topic but their results will be skewed.
Just as any number of conservative people can "unbiasedly" study a topic but their results will be also skewed.

I don't care about history or tradition. They are only tools for any argument.

It all boils down to opinion. Everything.

Curious. I've seen conservatives fall back on the "everything is relative" and "there is no truth" argument before -- but only when you prove they are full of shit.

And that reminds me, Dempublicents1, I DO get to decide. Or, at least, I get a say in the end decision. Just as you do. We both have one right in common, we can vote.

Sorry, sweetie, but we don't live in an absolute democracy.

Inconvenient little thing called the Constitution. You cannot simply vote away fundamental rights and equal protection under the law.

So, no, you don't get to decide what everyone else can and cannot do based on your private prejudices.

I do not see marriage as a right but a priviledge, a comtract, not a social institution at all.

The US Supreme Court and our society have disagreed with you for over 100 years.

But, as opinion is the only thing that counts, in your opinion could the government ban all marraige tomorrow?

Or might that tread on some rights?

Civil ceremonies show a good effort but are only secondary to a religious one. (Religious marriages are both Religious and Civil rolled into one package). When I was married at the Temple I was married according to God's law AND the law of the US government. and one man did that. This is how Civil and Religious marriages are connected. Religious marriages are both Civil and Religious. While state marriages are just Civil.

Bullshit. You got a marriage certificate from the state.

It is the legal institution of marriage with the attendant rights that we are discussing. You got those from the state.

A magic pixie can waive its wand and say you are "married," but that does not make it so unless the state agreed.

But as you recognize that there are "just Civil" marriages -- why are gays and lesbians not entitled to those?

You don't have to let them in your little Temple. But you should stop denying them equal protection under the law.

Can we just move California to the EU and be done with it? Amsterdam would love the company. Think about it...gay marriage cheap pot everything you liberals are crusading for. It would be expensive but if we can get a man on the moon we can get California into the North Atlantic.

Can we just move California to the EU and be done with it? Amsterdam would love the company. Think about it...gay marriage cheap pot everything you liberals are crusading for. It would be expensive but if we can get a man on the moon we can get California into the North Atlantic.
And the US would be worse off because of it ... yay another person who wants to get rid of everyone that does not agree with them :rolleyes:

Can we just move California to the EU and be done with it? Amsterdam would love the company. Think about it...gay marriage cheap pot everything you liberals are crusading for. It would be expensive but if we can get a man on the moon we can get California into the North Atlantic.

Yep.

'Cuz only Californians want equal protection under the law for homosexuals. :rolleyes:

And all liberals really care about is "cheap pot."

(Psst. Perhaps you were unaware of this, but the Governor of California is a Republican. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Perhaps you've heard of him? I've been told he is known in some circles outside Cali.)

He's not a real Republican. Are you saying the majority of California voters are conservatives?

He's not a real Republican. Are you saying the majority of California voters are conservatives?
Lol of course you call anyone that has adopted the same term for definition as you not a real “ ____” insert whatever term in the blank

Lol he is probably saying people like you are not real republicans :)

Only perverts watch porn, so no.
*masturbates*

*masturbates*
*masturbates to you masturbating* :eek:

He's not a real Republican.

Gee. He seems to think he is. President Bush seems to think he is.

In fact, the Repulican Party seems to think he is. He spoke at the Convention.

But, I missed that GOP thought-police badge of yours.

Are you saying the majority of California voters are conservatives?

Nope. Nor did I imply any such thing.

Conservatives have been elected from California.

Remember Ronnie Raygun? Where was he Governor?

George Deukmejian?
Pete Wilson?

There are plenty of conservatives in California.

There is not a consistent majority of time. So?

i didnt know rights could be gay,but i do know a gay who writes. :)

seriously though,it never should have been an issue. i dont understand why people allow other people to tell them what they can do with their bodies. who the hell do they think they are? am i the only one who finds is sad that grown adults still act like bullies and presume the right to tell other people how to live their life???!!!

noone has the right to force you to do anything unless you let them,and that includes abstaining from sex and letting them choose your partner....

if both people think it feels good...then do it!

Lol of course you call anyone that has adopted the same term for definition as you not a real “ ____” insert whatever term in the blank

Lol he is probably saying people like you are not real republicans :)

He opposes most to the Republican Party Platform. Same as Zell Miller is not a real Democrat. How about this...The Governator's values do not reflect the values of the majority of Republicans. Do I need to go into some snit snivelling assinine LOL legalize or dudespeak to get the point across. Do you not understand and can only respond with some elementary school sarcasm?

You know he's not as conservative as GWB, Reagan, Eisenhower, Cheney, Bill Frist or any of the other Republicans who believe in the official party platform.

If I proudly said I was a Democrat that believes in saying God in the Pledge of Allegiance, protecting gun rights, the sanctity of male and female marriage, was against gays adopting children, supported the war in Iraq and wanted to privatize Social Security, I bet you'd say I was a lousy Democrat.

And that reminds me, Dempublicents1, I DO get to decide. Or, at least, I get a say in the end decision. Just as you do. We both have one right in common, we can vote.

What you can and cannot vote on is limited by the US Constitution. There wer a lot of white people once upon a time who were mad that their vote that the black people remain second-class citizens didn't count. Oh noes!

We cannot vote to remove equal protection from a group. It is not within the voters' power.

I do not see marriage as a right but a priviledge, a comtract, not a social institution at all. Civil ceremonies show a good effort but are only secondary to a religious one.

That's funny. I know more than one person who was married in a civil setting, at the justice of the peace. No church involved at all. In fact, from a legal perspective, it would seem that it is the religious ceremonies that are secondary.

(Religious marriages are both Religious and Civil rolled into one package).

Not necessarily. It is possible to be married within a church, but not civilly married.

When I was married at the Temple I was married according to God's law AND the law of the US government. and one man did that. This is how Civil and Religious marriages are connected. Religious marriages are both Civil and Religious. While state marriages are just Civil.

Wait? So, because a few lawmakers decided to make things convenient for you (and that is the only reason that religious leaders are allowed to grant civil marriages - convenience), you suddenly get rights over other people's lives?

He opposes most to the Republican Party Platform.

So does that mean that, in your opinion, anyone who does not agree with everything that the US does is not a "real" US citizen?

You know he's not as conservative as GWB, Reagan, Eisenhower, Cheney, Bill Frist or any of the other Republicans who believe in the official party platform.

In truth, the policies of the gubernator (sorry, I love saying it) are closer to, say, Eisenhower than the current party platform is.

Like this one?

http://www.bobandtom.com/gen3/5cover_img/mustache_record.jpg

Oh, maybe you meant rights, not moustaches...
Or handlebars?!

See the hairy chest on him too!

As for being forced, well Im being forced everytime I walk into a newssagent and have smut put in front of me, with nearly ten thousand different porno mags on display, at kids eyelevel too.
Oh noes!

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!

In Saudi Arabia, women are never seen in public, other than clothed head to foot in black cloth. You never see their skin - any of it.

When the men there saw American female soldiers with their sleeves rolled up, the reaction they got was exactly as if a Playboy centerfold model was walking down the street with her clothes off. It excited them tremendously.

That's quite an interesting story. Saudis must have the best sex (only after marriage, of course).

The biggest problem with making same sex marriage legal is that soon afterwards couples will be sueing churches for not marrying them.
Where is the legal precedent to sue private religious organisations for discrimination?

If this was true, the Catholic church would be sued by feminists for not allowing women to be priests.

*masturbates to you masturbating* :eek:
oh, this is just too much for me to take!

Can we just move California to the EU and be done with it? Amsterdam would love the company. Think about it...gay marriage cheap pot everything you liberals are crusading for. It would be expensive but if we can get a man on the moon we can get California into the North Atlantic.
I see you are a part of the American fascist movement that thinks anyone who dissents from the conservative line doesn't deserve to live in America.

I think that is correct....

Anyone who doesn't believe in the official party platform of the GOP is not a real republican...

Also, while I'm at it, anyone who doesn't believe in the official American platform (like equal protection under the law, equality of rights, and the liberty of the people) is not a real American.

And I applaud all of those real and true Americans in here who stand up to end this discrimination against homosexuals in civil marriage statues....

And spit upon all of those bigoted anti-american assholes in here who wish to continue this blatant discimintory act.... Destroying everything the United States was founded upon...

Having just ignored the last 42 pages, I'll simply lay out my thoughts on the matter.

Simply put, gays should have every right and responsibility that heterosexuals should have, because there is a very compelling reason why they should (namely, they are human, and humans by nature ought to be free), and no compelling reason why this natural right should be overridden.

Basically, my argument for why they should be free from government intervention and discrimination is that, as humans, they are rational thinkers capable of autonomous actions, and autonomy should only be restricted in those cases where people or institutions have proven that 1) they cannot act rationally, or 2) they are incapable of using that autonomy in ways that don't impinge on other people's ability to act autonomously. There is nothing inherent in being gay that violates either of those two conditions. As a result, the state has no rational reason why it should restrict access to things like entrance into the military and marriage from gays.

Now, as a side note, I'll briefly lay out why I don't think any of the traditional arguments why it is okay to discriminate against gays hold much water. Basically, they break down into two main camps: utilitarian arguments and natural law arguments. I will cover both.

The utilitarian arguments are arguments to the effect that if you allow gays to avoid discrimination, society will be made more unhappy/ineffective as a result. For example, the argument that if gays can be married, than it might be possible for gays to adopt, and adopted children would be harmed by gay parents. Most of these, of course, are patently absurd notions: there is no link between gay parents and any negative consequences more serious than an increased temptation to sexually experiment with a member of the same gender. There is no greater likelihood to become gay, get divorced, have children out of wedlock, get an eating/drug disorder, anything. There is no sign that allowing gays in the British or German military has decreased their competence. There is no sign that allowing gays to get married or civilly united has caused any kind of destruction of Vermont; there aren't lightning bolts raining down from the heavens, and dogs and cats are not suddenly living together. There is simply no utilitarian argument for why gays should not be allowed to get married, adopt, join the military, etc.

The natural law arguments go back to Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of Aristotle (it should be noted that Aristotle did not ever condemn homosexuality as vicious, but simply said that sexuality taken to excess, like anything else, is a vicious habit) with respect to the natural law. Aquinas argued, like Aristotle, that to know whether a thing is good/evil, you must first know what it is, and to know what a thing is, you must know what purpose a thing naturally tends toward. For example, the end towards which a horse is naturally built is running, so if a horse runs well and fast, it is "good." Aquinas' interpretation of sex was that sex's natural purpose was towards the end of procreation. Therefore, any sexual acts that didn't result in procreation were bad, because they were unnatural.

Now of course, there are problems with this that we can see that Aquinas apparently did not: there weren't many post-menopausal women in Aquinas' time, for instance, but in our time, we are quite aware that they exist, and do not find the fact that they have sex at all unnatural. Likewise, we don't find it unnatural or immoral if a guy continues to have sex after he's had a vasectomy, or for a women to get married and have sex if she is incapable of bearing children (indeed, Abram and Sarai had sexual relations long before they ever bore a child, yet no one ever said that Abram was engaging in unnatural acts). So, I don't think it all that much of a stretch to say that, even supposing Aquinas was correct about his interpretation of natural law, that he was still mistaken in this instance because he misunderstood what the purpose to which sex progresses is: it isn't procreation, but rather to cement a loving relationship. But of course, homosexuals can have loving relationships, so under this definition, they are not unnatural, and therefore not evil.

As such, given that the utilitarian and natural law objections don't in my view hold much weight, I cannot give them credence when I ask whether or not there is any reason why homosexuals ought not be accorded the rights of any other person. As such, I believe they should have every right accorded to any and every other person.

I think that is correct....

Anyone who doesn't believe in the official party platform of the GOP is not a real republican...

Also, while I'm at it, anyone who doesn't believe in the official American platform (like equal protection under the law, equality of rights, and the liberty of the people) is not a real American.

And I applaud all of those real and true Americans in here who stand up to end this discrimination against homosexuals in civil marriage statues....

And spit upon all of those bigoted anti-american assholes in here who wish to continue this blatant discimintory act.... Destroying everything the United States was founded upon...

Damn well said.

So does that mean that, in your opinion, anyone who does not agree with everything that the US does is not a "real" US citizen?

Does your political ideology decide whether you are a citizen or not? No
Does it decide what political party you adhere to? yes

The two party system is a healthy part of our nation. Here in Arkansas, formerly a one party state, I was ridiculed at the polling place I worked when they found out I voted Republican in the past. How did they find out? They called one of my relatives, from the polling place. I didn't file a complaint. Maybe I should have.

According to swimmingpool conservatives should shut up and stay home because their fascist and bigots and don't deserve the right to free speech or association. If you could only throw us in jail everything would be better.

According to swimmingpool conservatives should shut up and stay home because their fascist and bigots and don't deserve the right to free speech or association. If you could only throw us in jail everything would be better.
Perhaps you could provide a link to where he said that. Because otherwise, it rather looks as if you're just throwing ad hominem attacks at him.

Homosexuals have equal rights as men and women. Adding gay into the mix adds something onto the rights they already possess. Equal rights + additional protections and legal guarantees because of homosexuality

If two guys are biting the pillows together and it doesn't come up in conversation I could handle talking with them but when their sexuality has to be basis of their treatment in the workplace, school or whereever it's a little different.

That's the line where people who may not tolerate it in their homes but wouldn't raise a fuss get annoyed. When the government says I have to hire homosexuals like it or not my ire gets up.

Homosexuals have equal rights as men and women. Adding gay into the mix adds something onto the rights they already possess. Equal rights + additional protections and legal guarantees because of homosexuality

If two guys are biting the pillows together and it doesn't come up in conversation I could handle talking with them but when their sexuality has to be basis of their treatment in the workplace, school or whereever it's a little different.

That's the line where people who may not tolerate it in their homes but wouldn't raise a fuss get annoyed. When the government says I have to hire homosexuals like it or not my ire gets up.
So you advocate discrimination against homosexuals?

Perhaps you could provide a link to where he said that. Because otherwise, it rather looks as if you're just throwing ad hominem attacks at him.

Swimmingpool did call me a fascist...have you shaken your finger at him?

okay, maybe I got ahead of myself. I'll ask Swimmingpool.

This one is just for Swimmingpool,

Is there anytime when someone's right to speech should be abridged because of they espouse a fascist ideology you find damaging to society?

So does that mean that, in your opinion, anyone who does not agree with everything that the US does is not a "real" US citizen?

Does your political ideology decide whether you are a citizen or not? No
Does it decide what political party you adhere to? yes

The two party system is a healthy part of our nation. Here in Arkansas, formerly a one party state, I was ridiculed at the polling place I worked when they found out I voted Republican in the past. How did they find out? They called one of my relatives, from the polling place. I didn't file a complaint. Maybe I should have.

According to swimmingpool conservatives should shut up and stay home because their fascist and bigots and don't deserve the right to free speech or association. If you could only throw us in jail everything would be better.

Actually, it was you who suggested moving an entire state out of the US and into the EU cause it doesn't adhere to your "party politics".

We (that is the Americans in here of liberal and libertarian persuasion) have merely been beating your politics over the head with the foundational principles (natural rights) that this country was founded upon. You're most free to say whatever you like, and we're most free to keep pointing out that the basic principles that this country was founded upon, say you're wrong.

Swimmingpool did call me a fascist...have you shaken your finger at him?

okay, maybe I got ahead of myself. I'll ask Swimmingpool.

This one is just for Swimmingpool,

Is there anytime when someone's right to speech should be abridged because of they espouse a fascist ideology you find damaging to society?

Swimmingpool said:


I see you are a part of the American fascist movement that thinks anyone who dissents from the conservative line doesn't deserve to live in America.

To your statement:


Can we just move California to the EU and be done with it? Amsterdam would love the company. Think about it...gay marriage cheap pot everything you liberals are crusading for. It would be expensive but if we can get a man on the moon we can get California into the North Atlantic.

No where did he abridge your "freedom of speech"...

Now, before you dig your lame self further into that hole of hypocrisy, perhapse you'll think before speaking...

So you advocate discrimination against homosexuals?

Noone should raise their fist to any other human being in malice. I disagree with their politics and morality.

I do discriminate on the basis of someone's behavior. (I know the arguement about nature or choice) If someone acts in a certain way I don't like: someone openly expressing homosexuality, someone talking about hot sex with their wife at lunch, someone listening to gangsta rap or someone listening to opera; I should not be made to hire those individuals by law.

Noone should raise their fist to any other human being in malice. I disagree with their politics and morality.

I do discriminate on the basis of someone's behavior. (I know the arguement about nature or choice) If someone acts in a certain way I don't like: someone openly expressing homosexuality, someone talking about hot sex with their wife at lunch, someone listening to gangsta rap or someone listening to opera; I should not be made to hire those individuals by law.

Non-issue... No one in here as advocated forced hiring of people...

The issue here is discrimination in civil marriage statutes...

According to swimmingpool conservatives should shut up and stay home because their fascist and bigots and don't deserve the right to free speech or association. If you could only throw us in jail everything would be better.
I never said that. I did, however, accuse you of being a fascist.

Homosexuals have equal rights as men and women.

Homosexuals are men and women, like the rest of us. :rolleyes:

That's the line where people who may not tolerate it in their homes but wouldn't raise a fuss get annoyed. When the government says I have to hire homosexuals like it or not my ire gets up.
I never said that the government should impose sexuality quotas on private employers.

If you are unwilling to hire a resourceful homosexual because of their sexuality, it's your loss, and the free market competition will drown your business. No government required. :)

Is there anytime when someone's right to speech should be abridged because of they espouse a fascist ideology you find damaging to society?
No, not at all. I support free speech rights, for everyone. Including your right to preach fascism and my right to call fascism for what it is.

(matchopolis crawls out from his hole)

so far I'm a bigot, fascist, hypocrite, anti-American asshole that should be spit on

From now on I will be civil if you guys are civil. I will match insult for insult. Everyone's got a clean slate now.

I see no legal difference between marriage and civil unions except for the connotation of religious recognition of marriage. That day is usually the only attendance to church most people have anyway so let's throw that connotation out.

Civil Unions have been a clever political play, seeming divorcing homosexual marriage from the obligations of the Church. Natural law requires a male human and a female human to mate. I know of no instance when a man and man where given the same treatment, as far as the view of marriage in society is concerned, in the history of civilization. I do not think this societal change is justified.

Swimmingpool did call me a fascist...have you shaken your finger at him?

okay, maybe I got ahead of myself. I'll ask Swimmingpool.

This one is just for Swimmingpool,

Is there anytime when someone's right to speech should be abridged because of they espouse a fascist ideology you find damaging to society?

I love it when conservatives say "you're violating my right to free speech" anytime you disagree with them. Ain't how it works, sparky.

Correctly identifying fascist ideology is not not infringing anyone's right to free speech.

Nor is pointing how that someone's views are idiotic and dangerous.

That is how free speech works.

Person A can spew whatever vile idiocy they want.

Person B can point out that what Person A said was vile and idiotic.

That is free speech in action.

As it happens, this is a private forum. So every poster's speech is subject to the whims of the forum's owner. As it happens, these forums allow a wide range of speech -- but you must play within the rules.

Homosexuals have equal rights as men and women.

No. They don't. Been explained many times.

Strike 1.

Adding gay into the mix adds something onto the rights they already possess. Equal rights + additional protections and legal guarantees because of homosexuality

No. Homosexuals seek equal rights and opportunities. Nothing more and nothing less.

Strike 2.

If two guys are biting the pillows together and it doesn't come up in conversation I could handle talking with them but when their sexuality has to be basis of their treatment in the workplace, school or whereever it's a little different.

Actually, what gays and lesbians are seeking is for their sexual orientation nad/or sexuality to not be the basis of their treatment.

Strike 3.

Your outta there.

That's the line where people who may not tolerate it in their homes but wouldn't raise a fuss get annoyed. When the government says I have to hire homosexuals like it or not my ire gets up.

What's this an extra swing? And he misses.

The government can and should say you cannot conduct public business if you wish to discriminate against people on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Allowing knuckle-dragging facists in the workplace gets my ire up -- but so long as they do their job, they should be fired for being homophobic.

Game. Set. Match.

(matchopolis crawls out from his hole)

so far I'm a bigot, fascist, hypocrite, anti-American asshole that should be spit on

From now on I will be civil if you guys are civil. I will match insult for insult. Everyone's got a clean slate now.

Don't say things that are bigotted, facist, hypocritical, or anti-American.

Then we won't have to point out your views have those flaws.

I see no legal difference between marriage and civil unions except for the connotation of religious recognition of marriage. That day is usually the only attendance to church most people have anyway so let's throw that connotation out.

Great. Then you don't care if gays and lesbians get married. We are agreed.

Civil Unions have been a clever political play, seeming divorcing homosexual marriage from the obligations of the Church.

Sorry, but you have always been able to get married without the involvement of (or any obligations to) a Church.

There are no legal obligations of any citizen to any Church (unless they are individual contractual obligations like employment). See the First Amendment.

Natural law requires a male human and a female human to mate.

Nope. See artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization.

More importantly, reproduction is neither necessary nor sufficient for a marriage. And I don't believe it ever has been.

I know of no instance when a man and man where given the same treatment, as far as the view of marriage in society is concerned, in the history of civilization. I do not think this societal change is justified.

Then you haven't looked very hard and are just ignorant.

But don't worry -- ignorance can be cured. Read up the thread a little.

so gays are considered a minority, right? well the minority is only the minority because there is more of the majority. so i, as a member of the majority, say screw gays and their rights....... if they think they are something special because they are just different, then they are completely off base... the only rights they deserve are patients rights, so they can be treated for their sicko disease

so gays are considered a minority, right? well the minority is only the minority because there is more of the majority. so i, as a member of the majority, say screw gays and their rights....... if they think they are something special because they are just different, then they are completely off base... the only rights they deserve are patients rights, so they can be treated for their sicko disease
Let me guess...

a white, straight, christian male?

so gays are considered a minority, right? well the minority is only the minority because there is more of the majority. so i, as a member of the majority, say screw gays and their rights....... if they think they are something special because they are just different, then they are completely off base... the only rights they deserve are patients rights, so they can be treated for their sicko disease
Screw the jews, no one cares about them anyway. They are wrongheaded and need to be sterilized and sent to the gas chambers to cure them of their sicko disease.

so gays are considered a minority, right? well the minority is only the minority because there is more of the majority. so i, as a member of the majority, say screw gays and their rights....... if they think they are something special because they are just different, then they are completely off base... the only rights they deserve are patients rights, so they can be treated for their sicko disease

How very special.

Unfortunately for you, we are a society that recognizes individual rights that are not subject to the whims of the majority. You may have heard of this little thing called the U.S. Constitution.

That thing is so darn inconvenient to fascists and hatemongers.

Let me guess...

a white, straight, christian male?

Don't forget ... likely a sexually repressed teenager.

Don't forget ... likely a sexually repressed teenager.
How could i have forgotten?

i don't think gays should get any rights. it is disgusting and its just plain sick. they should be forced to serve in the miltary and not let them come within 10 yards of any guys.

i don't think gays should get any rights. it is disgusting and its just plain sick. they should be forced to serve in the miltary and not let them come within 10 yards of any guys.
I dont think homophobes should get any rights. it is disgusting and its just plain sick. they should be forced to serve in the miltary and not let them come within 10 yards of any girls

Don't forget ... likely a sexually repressed teenager.
Who isn't as straight as he'd like to think, too.

i don't think gays should get any rights. it is disgusting and its just plain sick. they should be forced to serve in the miltary and not let them come within 10 yards of any guys.
i don't think jews should get any rights. it is disgusting and its just plain sick. they should be forced to serve in the miltary and not let them come within 10 yards of any christians.


How do these people not know what they're saying?

Easy. They're either puppets made for the express purpose of starting a flame war, or they have not yet been in the forum long enough to achieve enlightenment.

Or they're just stupid.

Or they're just stupid.


Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping!Ping! Ping!

Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner!

i don't think gays should get any rights. it is disgusting and its just plain sick. they should be forced to serve in the miltary and not let them come within 10 yards of any guys.

Even supposing it were true, being disgusting and just plain sick has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your rights are respected in this country. You'll note that people who pick their nose and eat it aren't prohibited from getting married or serving in the military, for instance, and that's a lot worse than anything gays do.

Gays, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, and practically any other non-"chrisitan" grouphave always and continue to be cast out. We need more understanding and cooperation in this country and this world.
"You can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace. It's your next damn neighbor, but don't forget to say grace and you tell me over and over and over again, my friend how you do'nt believe we're on the eve of destruction."

-Eve of Destruction (60's protest song)

faggots should have no rights. the would be more useful to society if the donated their flesh to burn victims. if i pissed anyone off send me a telegram. :fluffle: :sniper:
Hey kids, it's an America-hater!

faggots should have no rights. the would be more useful to society if the donated their flesh to burn victims. if i pissed anyone off send me a telegram. :fluffle: :sniper:Why in the world would I bother to telegram you? You obviously know everything and have reasoned through life's problems. Jeez, I wish I was 14 again. :rolleyes:

faggots should have no rights. the would be more useful to society if the donated their flesh to burn victims. if i pissed anyone off send me a telegram. :fluffle: :sniper:


Look, another 'phobe who figured out how to play with the emoticons! Of course, he is pointing a large, virile phallic symbol at two men kissing. . .wonder what that says about his ego?

I'm 14 and I believe in equal rights.

I'm 14 and I believe in equal rights.

Then you're way ahead of the game kid. Kudos.

I'm a little sick of all the hate for everyone. People get killed because of sexual preference or religon? I say NO WAY!
I mean, I'm straight, but I have gay friends. Anyone who hates someone for something stupid like that is just looking for a pathetic excuse to draw attention away from their own faults, and by the way, I'm not saying homosexuality is a fault.

Didn't we just leave this party?
I'm totally sick of arguing about homosexuality right now.
why don't we argue about what color the internet is? that could take a while :D

The Internet Is Tye-dye!

I say the internet is gray.
I wish it were green though...

Blue would be ok too.

Gray? Maybe it is devoid of color. BLACk

"I see an internet and i want to paint it black"
Sorry Rolling Stones!

I think the Internet is colored octarine plaid. :D

i dont think gays rights are taken away... what exactly are we complaining about... they have the freedoms that everyone else has. they are equally protected under the law. they are protected under the constitution. I personally think homosexuality isn't normal... but my opinions dont create laws... so exactly what RIGHTS are gays missing, that every other person has?

if you want to say the marriage thing... the BENEFITS that go along with marriage (which happens to be a religious institution) are (and i must reiterate) BENEFITS... im not married and i dont have them.. im in love with someone, and we dont have them, my little sister doesnt have them. the single ppl in america dont have them... they are benefits, not rights, which are what need to be upheld by the law...

i dont think gays rights are taken away... what exactly are we complaining about... they have the freedoms that everyone else has. they are equally protected under the law. they are protected under the constitution. I personally think homosexuality isn't normal... but my opinions dont create laws... so exactly what RIGHTS are gays missing, that every other person has?

if you want to say the marriage thing... the BENEFITS that go along with marriage (which happens to be a religious institution) are (and i must reiterate) BENEFITS... im not married and i dont have them.. im in love with someone, and we dont have them, my little sister doesnt have them. the single ppl in america dont have them... they are benefits, not rights, which are what need to be upheld by the law...

Though I despise you, I must say that I accept your ideas. I didn't say I agree with them, but I accept them as yours. Right or wrong have no place.

However, I was just under the impression that marriage was about love. Maybe I'm too young to realize what marriage is really about. Oh yeah, it's about some way of gaining material benefits in today's capitalistic society! Right, I guess I slept through my Bullshit 101 class.

-Mianimas

i dont think gays rights are taken away... what exactly are we complaining about... they have the freedoms that everyone else has. they are equally protected under the law. they are protected under the constitution. I personally think homosexuality isn't normal... but my opinions dont create laws... so exactly what RIGHTS are gays missing, that every other person has?

if you want to say the marriage thing... the BENEFITS that go along with marriage (which happens to be a religious institution) are (and i must reiterate) BENEFITS... im not married and i dont have them.. im in love with someone, and we dont have them, my little sister doesnt have them. the single ppl in america dont have them... they are benefits, not rights, which are what need to be upheld by the law...

Amendment XIV Section 1 of the US Constitution (emphasis added):

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.

Basically your idea that marriage is a priveldge/benefits and not a right is pointless. All citizens are still supposed to be treated equally under the law. Denying gays access to programs given to all other couples (should they choose to access them) is illegal discrimination in this nation.

The Constitution is so cliche, and your post is of the devil.

What is so difficult to understand?

A man cannot marry a man, legally.
A man can mary a woman, legally.

Definition of discrimination:
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice
The class or category: Men who like other men.
The treatment or consideration: Denial of marriage.

It is the DEFINITION of discrimination. Legal definitions don't matter, because the rights of your fellow humans are being violated. If, in order to get equal rights, blacks had to create an entirely new legal institution or had to change the entirety of the government around, it would be okay, because nothing is worth the restriction of equal rights.

Gay rights are human rights.
How smart do you have to be to understand that? :headbang:

Gay rights are human rights.
How smart do you have to be to understand that? :headbang:

I used to think it was about intelligence, but I've since realized that its not just dumb people who don't understand what gay equality is all about. There are some darned intelligent people out there who are visciously opposed to gays being anything but second class--and they realize that that is what they want!

I finally figured it out. People who are opposed to gays being equals under the law are simply uncompassionate, mean-spirited jackasses. They refuse to see gays as humans because they refuse to put themselves in the homosexuals place for even a few moments. They are so self-righteous that they cannot imagine taht someone would have no choice but to be something that they find so disgusting.

Does that make sense or is sleep deprivation making me even more confusing than I normally am?

I used to think it was about intelligence, but I've since realized that its not just dumb people who don't understand what gay equality is all about. There are some darned intelligent people out there who are visciously opposed to gays being anything but second class--and they realize that that is what they want!

I finally figured it out. People who are opposed to gays being equals under the law are simply uncompassionate, mean-spirited jackasses. They refuse to see gays as humans because they refuse to put themselves in the homosexuals place for even a few moments. They are so self-righteous that they cannot imagine taht someone would have no choice but to be something that they find so disgusting.

Does that make sense or is sleep deprivation making me even more confusing than I normally am?

It made sense to me, but the typing looks a little sleep deprived.
Maybe you could just let your hands have a little nap. :p

i don't think gays should get any rights. it is disgusting and its just plain sick. they should be forced to serve in the miltary and not let them come within 10 yards of any guys.

Frontline only. ;)

He's not a real Republican. Are you saying the majority of California voters are conservatives?

Ah, yes that old chestnut, the Not a True Scotsman.

*masturbates*
I take it your single?

Umm, I live in Australia and I have no clue what you're on about. There is pornography, sure, but most of it is kept either under the counter or in wrappers and close to the counter so that naughty boys can't sneak a peek at it.

Bullshit. Come to Sydney.

Nope, since you have invoked "normality" as a standard, and yet it is *you* that deviates from the norm.
You are abnormal. You are a sexual deviant.

Hah what away to twist something around, I dont watch porn so that makes me the sexual deviant, get real.
Do you think sex revolves soley around porn or something?

I take it your single?

Are you under the impression that married people don't masturbate?

Silly MSB, masturbation isn't just for kids. It is fun for all ages! And you can even do with your spouse!

I see no legal difference between marriage and civil unions except for the connotation of religious recognition of marriage. That day is usually the only attendance to church most people have anyway so let's throw that connotation out.



Thing is, "civil union" isn't marriage. Unless you want to argue that all those people who never saw the inside of a church aren't married?

Are you under the impression that married people don't masturbate?

Silly MSB, masturbation isn't just for kids. It is fun for all ages! And you can even do with your spouse!

You're lucky I didn't have any liquid in my mouth --- It would've been all over my monitor! Why are you lucky?

'Cause... I would've had to hit you!

I dont think homophobes should get any rights. it is disgusting and its just plain sick. they should be forced to serve in the miltary and not let them come within 10 yards of any girls

Speaking of gays in the military - the UK armed forces, from the Autumn, will be granting same-sex partners married quarters.

You're lucky I didn't have any liquid in my mouth --- It would've been all over my monitor! Why are you lucky?

'Cause... I would've had to hit you!

"Mom! Potaria threatened to hit me!"

Oh, I forgot. She lives about 1000 miles away. And that isn't far enough. And she is the last person I'd ever ask for help.

I quess I am lucky! :D

"Mom! Potaria threatened to hit me!"

Oh, I forgot. She lives about 1000 miles away. And that isn't far enough. And she is the last person I'd ever ask for help.

I quess I am lucky! :D

You lucky bastard! My dad lives... Fifteen feet away from me; I wish he lived 15,000 miles away from me.

But those of us who have no problem with porn don't notice it (unless we're buying...but that's a different story). See the strange thing?

It could be some kind of macabre attraction...

But then again


If that's the most intelligent you're gonna get, why bother?

I dont care if you buy it, I just dont like where its placed when I walk into the newssagency, its right in your face nearly, there should be a sign saying pervs this way pointing to a section up the back.

Most intelligent? It summed it up perfectly, a wittless observation like that doesnt even deserve a comment.

I dont care if you buy it, I just dont like where its placed when I walk into the newssagency, its right in your face nearly, there should be a sign saying pervs this way pointing to a section up the back.

Most intelligent? It summed it up perfectly, a wittless observation like that doesnt even deserve a comment.

You must be a fun one around the house.

if you want to say the marriage thing... the BENEFITS that go along with marriage (which happens to be a religious institution) are (and i must reiterate) BENEFITS... im not married and i dont have them.. im in love with someone, and we dont have them, my little sister doesnt have them. the single ppl in america dont have them... they are benefits, not rights, which are what need to be upheld by the law...

Tax breaks and legal privileges are not religious institutions.

As soon as government starts recognising marriage as special, all religious aspects go *straight* out the window. Same sex couples are prohibited from marrying their partners - that is wrong.

Are you under the impression that married people don't masturbate?

Silly MSB, masturbation isn't just for kids. It is fun for all ages! And you can even do with your spouse!

Whatever turns you pervs on I guess, you dont have to tell me, Im really not that interested.

Fun for all ages ... enough said. :rolleyes:

You must be a fun one around the house.

Don't say "fun."

Fun is sinful. And harmful to children.

Did you know there are some places that are allowed to sell "fun" stuff and activities?

Those evil bastards.

Whatever turns you pervs on I guess, you dont have to tell me, Im really not that interested.

Fun for all ages ... enough said. :rolleyes:

Yep. Only pervs ever masturbate.

It is scientifically proven, after all. :rolleyes:

Pervs are also responsible for the chocolate epidemic and those evil book things.

They must be stopped!

Hah what away to twist something around, I dont watch porn so that makes me the sexual deviant, get real.
Do you think sex revolves soley around porn or something?

You invoked normality as a standard. Not me.

By *your* chosen standard, *you* are a deviant.

It ain't my fault that you didn't think it through before invoking normality.

Don't say "fun."

Fun is sinful. And harmful to children.

Did you know there are some places that are allowed to sell "fun" stuff and activities?

Those evil bastards.

Yeah, and to think that kids are actually allowed, ALLOWED to talk to each other in school cafeterias!

Sinners should be put to death, children most of all!

You must be a fun one around the house.

Yeah I am, just not the 'fun' your probably into.

Yeah I am, just not the 'fun' your probably into.

Jumping the gun, Mein Furher?

Some of you will get this one... Hahahaha.

You invoked normality as a standard. Not me.

By *your* chosen standard, *you* are a deviant.

It ain't my fault that you didn't think it through before invoking normality.

My my we do have a twisted little mind dont we?
What else do you evoke as normal, sex with dogs?

Jumping the gun, Mein Furher?

Some of you will get this one... Hahahaha.

Ah werent the Nazis really into all this stuff? I should be giving you the mein Fuhrer, thats how you spell it to enlighten you abit.

My my we do have a twisted little mind dont we?
What else do you evoke as normal, sex with dogs?

No, because the *norm* [i.e. the accepted standard of the majority] is that sex with dogs is not acceptable.

The majority [i.e. the norm - the standard *you* invoked] see porn as fine and dandy.

That means *you*, the one saying porn is evidence of abnormality and an unhealthy mind, are the deviant one.

So, who's got the twisted mind - me, the one using *your* argument, or *you*, the one who can't follow your argument?

Yep. Only pervs ever masturbate.
It is scientifically proven, after all. :rolleyes:
Pervs are also responsible for the chocolate epidemic and those evil book things.
They must be stopped!

I didnt say that, but only a perv would come on and brag about it, congratulations, have some tissues, you might need them.

Ah werent the Nazis really into all this stuff? I should be giving you the mein Fuhrer, thats how you spell it to enlighten you abit.

Heh, you pinned it without even realising you were doing so. Way to go!

My my we do have a twisted little mind dont we?
What else do you evoke as normal, sex with dogs?

Try to follow along this twisted little path:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=normal&x=10&y=15)

Main Entry: 1nor·mal
Pronunciation: 'nor-m&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin normalis, from norma
1 : PERPENDICULAR; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : SANE


1. Things that the vast majority of people do are normal.

2. Things that occur naturally are normal.

3. Things that sane people do are normal.

4. The majority of people masturbate and/or watch porn. (Note: sex with dogs not qualify.)

5. Masturbation is natural. Quite common in animals. Being excited by images of attractive naked people and/or sexual activity is natural. (Note: sex with another species not qualify)

6. Sane people can and do masturbate and/or watch porn. (Note: sex with dogs raises questions about sanity)

7. Masturbation and watching porn are normal. (Sex with dogs is not.)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=deviant&x=21&y=20)

Main Entry: de·vi·ant
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
- deviant noun

8. As masturbation and/or watching porn are the norm, refusing to do either is deviant behavior.

My my we do have a twisted little mind dont we?
What else do you evoke as normal, sex with dogs?

If the dog consents.

~pr0ph37~

No, because the *norm* [i.e. the accepted standard of the majority] is that sex with dogs is not acceptable.

The majority [i.e. the norm - the standard *you* invoked] see porn as fine and dandy.

That means *you*, the one saying porn is evidence of abnormality and an unhealthy mind, are the deviant one.

So, who's got the twisted mind - me, the one using *your* argument, or *you*, the one who can't follow your argument?

Im following it fine, you have forgotten afew things but, I said excessive porn watching is abnormal, and watching any porn is sick, see the difference, do you need a slow motion replay? Do you follow the arguement now?
As for the majority of society saying watching porn is fine and dandy, do you think this same majority would re elect John Major, if he agreed out aloud with you, that watching porn is fine and dandy? Somehow I think not. Now why do you think that is.
Also, if not watching porn makes me twisted in your eyes, then so be it, Ill just watch a thriller instead, you know something nice and clean, and Ill leave you to watch some total strangers copulating on screen while you have a wank, because your the normal one. ;)

I didnt say that, but only a perv would come on and brag about it, congratulations, have some tissues, you might need them.

No.

Masturbation is normal and healthy.

Only someone that is seriously repressed and/or has psychological issues would be ashamed of it as an adult and would claim othes should be ashamed of it.

I masturbate. So does just about everyone who has reached puberty. Yay for us!

Please fax the tissues. I may well need them later.

If the dog consents.
~pr0ph37~

You better hope theres not a ventriloquist in the room when you ask it then.

No.
Masturbation is normal and healthy.
Only someone that is seriously repressed and/or has psychological issues would be ashamed of it as an adult and would claim othes should be ashamed of it.
I masturbate. So does just about everyone who has reached puberty. Yay for us!
Please fax the tissues. I may well need them later.

Well good for you, have a wank for me tonight then, Im over it mate.

Well good for you, have a wank for me tonight then, Im over it mate.

Yay! We have a breakthrough!

Now that we've made some progress with our therapy ....

tell me where the bad man touched you. ;)

Try to follow along this twisted little path:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=normal&x=10&y=15)
Main Entry: 1nor·mal
Pronunciation: 'nor-m&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin normalis, from norma
1 : PERPENDICULAR; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : SANE
1. Things that the vast majority of people do are normal.

2. Things that occur naturally are normal.

3. Things that sane people do are normal.

4. The majority of people masturbate and/or watch porn. (Note: sex with dogs not qualify.)

5. Masturbation is natural. Quite common in animals. Being excited by images of attractive naked people and/or sexual activity is natural. (Note: sex with another species not qualify)

6. Sane people can and do masturbate and/or watch porn. (Note: sex with dogs raises questions about sanity)

7. Masturbation and watching porn are normal. (Sex with dogs is not.)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=deviant&x=21&y=20)

Main Entry: de·vi·ant
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
- deviant noun

8. As masturbation and/or watching porn are the norm, refusing to do either is deviant behavior.

I agree with you on the masturbation being normal behaviour, to a point of course, but watching porn doesnt really qualify you as normal, or abnormal for that matter, like I said before watching accessive amounts of it would be abnormal, as someone eating three jars of peanut butter a day, but Ill stick by my original statement, watching porn is for the sick minded.
I agree with you 100% about the dogs, I didnt bring them into this either.

Im following it fine, you have forgotten afew things but, I said excessive porn watching is abnormal, and watching any porn is sick, see the difference, do you need a slow motion replay? Do you follow the arguement now?
As for the majority of society saying watching porn is fine and dandy, do you think this same majority would re elect John Major, if he agreed out aloud with you, that watching porn is fine and dandy? Somehow I think not. Now why do you think that is.
Also, if not watching porn makes me twisted in your eyes, then so be it, Ill just watch a thriller instead, you know something nice and clean, and Ill leave you to watch some total strangers copulating on screen while you have a wank, because your the normal one. ;)

Thing is, you have no basis for making that claim [your normality argument has been thoroughly trashed - unless you want to argue that the majority of people are sick? I hope not, because you'll look very silly] other than your own insecurities.

As for the variance between what people say and what they do - this is a well known fact. Studies in the 50s, for example, observed people who claimed they would discriminate against chinese immigrants - many, when observed covertly, did not. Quite the opposite.

I'm more interested in what people *do* than in what they *say* about what they are doing - and the stats show that most people enjoy porn.

A quick straw poll does indeed confirm that I *am* the normal one here - so far I have yet to see anyone support your stance.

Yay! We have a breakthrough!

Now that we've made some progress with our therapy ....

tell me where the bad man touched you. ;)

You know thats a pretty low thing to say, I guess you didnt really think that through much did you?

I agree with you on the masturbation being normal behaviour, to a point of course, but watching porn doesnt really qualify you as normal, or abnormal for that matter, like I said before watching accessive amounts of it would be abnormal, as someone eating three jars of peanut butter a day, but Ill stick by my original statement, watching porn is for the sick minded.
I agree with you 100% about the dogs, I didnt bring them into this either.


Then you are claiming that the *majority* of people [the standard from which judgement of health must be drawn] are sick minded.

That doesn't wash.

You better hope theres not a ventriloquist in the room when you ask it then.

=P my point was, it doesn't matter what you do, what you do it to, or how you do it, as long as no-one (including animals) gets harmed. I'm not a fan of animal sex, but if someone wants to do that, then that's up to them. And have you ever met a dog that didn't hump furniture?

All this talk about discrimination got me thinking, that a lot of people seem to somehow make this starnge parallel discrimination <--> evil. This is not true. Even now there is a lot of people get discriminated for (IMHO) very valid reasons and nobody questions such a practice. For example we do not allow blind people to get driver licenses and drive. We do not allow diagnosed homicidal maniacs to walk around as they please. Is it a discrimination against blind and mentaly handicapped? Of course. Is it a "good" discrimination? I think so. In this case, I think that before we allow (for example) adoption by gay people, we need to have conclusive studies showing that children raised in such families are not more prone to any psychological problems. For gay people in the army service, we need a conclusive study showing that introduction of gay personel into a combat unit doesn't, for example, affect morale. Obviously, with current administration's stupid conservative views such studies are not ever going to be undertaken and I think it is bad. But I also think that just blindly screaming discrimination without exploring potential harmful effects is not such a grand idea.
Another thought is about several people mentioning punishment for discrimination. This (IMHO) is ridiculous. I think it is my right top think however good or bad about anybody for any reason. It is also my right to express my opinion in any way I choose. If I think George Bush is stupid I can say so, make a web site that says so and go around the street in a "Bush is stupid" t-shirt. If I think gay people (or black people or people in glasses or people with red hair) are evil I can say so, I can make a web site and I can wear a t-shirt. As a business owner, I can hire a person or not for any reason I want to, so if I am a single straight japanese male and I want al of my employees to be young attractive single straight japanese females I should be able to, given the fact that I might have to look harder than if I had less strict criterias. What exactly is wrong with that? Now, discrimination by goverment is definitely bad, but as an individual (or a group of individuals) I can hate anyone I want as long as I am not breaking any laws (i.e. not actually physically hurting or killing anyone). I think that US legal system has somewhere lost the sight of common sense in such issues.

Then you are claiming that the *majority* of people [the standard from which judgement of health must be drawn] are sick minded.

That doesn't wash.

Um, yeah it does. Just because there's a lot of them doesn't make 'em right - fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Thing is, you have no basis for making that claim [your normality argument has been thoroughly trashed - unless you want to argue that the majority of people are sick? I hope not, because you'll look very silly] other than your own insecurities.

As for the variance between what people say and what they do - this is a well known fact. Studies in the 50s, for example, observed people who claimed they would discriminate against chinese immigrants - many, when observed covertly, did not. Quite the opposite.

I'm more interested in what people *do* than in what they *say* about what they are doing - and the stats show that most people enjoy porn.

A quick straw poll does indeed confirm that I *am* the normal one here - so far I have yet to see anyone support your stance.

Well first off my arguement hasnt been thougherely trashed, its been disagreed with by a few people on here, and a few right nutters at that.
The majority angle has been taken by you with still no proof put up yet, but your basing your entire arguement on it.
Stats stats stats where are your stats?
That the majority of people love watching porn, so this in your simplistic arguement makes watching porn normal.
Your straw poll is exactly that, straw, you honestly could not take this forum as evocative of society, one its way to liberal in thinking, which is not the normal percent in society, you have won a small battle, put a porno on and have a wank to celerbrate.

Um, yeah it does. Just because there's a lot of them doesn't make 'em right - fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Exactly, maybe ol Rus just hangs out with alot of them.

Um, yeah it does. Just because there's a lot of them doesn't make 'em right - fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

When one is referring to normality, and "sick mindedness", ad populum is the most valid argument. Normality is *defined* by the majority.

Well first off my arguement hasnt been thougherely trashed, its been disagreed with by a few people on here, and a few right nutters at that.
The majority angle has been taken by you with still no proof put up yet, but your basing your entire arguement on it.
Stats stats stats where are your stats?
That the majority of people love watching porn, so this in your simplistic arguement makes watching porn normal.
Your straw poll is exactly that, straw, you honestly could not take this forum as evocative of society, one its way to liberal in thinking, which is not the normal percent in society, you have won a small battle, put a porno on and have a wank to celerbrate.

Look upthread - links were provided earlier.

Normal is defined by the majority - that is not a simplistic argument.

And it is particularly silly to try to lie about what you've said in a thread -- because we can go back and look at it!

I agree with you on the masturbation being normal behaviour, to a point of course, but watching porn doesnt really qualify you as normal, or abnormal for that matter, like I said before watching accessive amounts of it would be abnormal, as someone eating three jars of peanut butter a day, but Ill stick by my original statement, watching porn is for the sick minded.

You did claim masturbation was abnormal and perverted.

And your double-speak on porn speaks for itself.

I agree with you 100% about the dogs, I didnt bring them into this either.

My my we do have a twisted little mind dont we?
What else do you evoke as normal, sex with dogs?

=P my point was, it doesn't matter what you do, what you do it to, or how you do it, as long as no-one (including animals) gets harmed. I'm not a fan of animal sex, but if someone wants to do that, then that's up to them. And have you ever met a dog that didn't hump furniture?

Yes.
Dogs in my experience usually go for my leg, or someone elses this is usually followed by a swift kick, Ive never seen a dog try to root furniture, nor do I want to.
As for the topic of beastiality, I disagree 100% with you about what a man does with his dog in the privacy of his own home is his business etc I think thats beyond the pale, I wouldnt want someone like that as my neighbor, or even in the same neighborhood.
Id want the sick bastard at the end of a rope.

You know thats a pretty low thing to say, I guess you didnt really think that through much did you?

Pot calls the kettle ....

Pot calls the kettle ....

Looks more like Pot gets confused over what colour Kettle is.

Yes.
Dogs in my experience usually go for my leg, or someone elses this is usually followed by a swift kick, Ive never seen a dog try to root furniture, nor do I want to.
As for the topic of beastiality, I disagree 100% with you about what a man does with his dog in the privacy of his own home is his business etc I think thats beyond the pale, I wouldnt want someone like that as my neighbor, or even in the same neighborhood.
Id want the sick bastard at the end of a rope.

I'll agree if you can actually point to anything "wrong" or "sick" about it. And please don't waste my time with preschool arguments about it being 'unnatural'.

Ah Cat tribe where did I claim masturbation was abnormal and perverted? All you did was quote was me saying it was normal up to a point, who looks silly now.
Silly pussycat.
I concur on the dogs but, I did bring them into it.

Look upthread - links were provided earlier.

Normal is defined by the majority - that is not a simplistic argument.

Can you put them up again, I honestly cant be bothered looking for them, thanks.

Normal is defined by the majority is it, so whats normal is subject to change in your mind then?
Thats a bit strange, you let a majority dictate to you what is normal and what isnt.

When one is referring to normality, and "sick mindedness", ad populum is the most valid argument. Normality is *defined* by the majority.

Now you're assuming that 'normal' and 'sick-minded' are mutually exclusive.

Pot calls the kettle ....

So your saying I said something like that to the other person, funny I usually dont stoop to those kind of comments, asking if someones being tampered with in their childhood, wich he inferred on me, do you even know what your talking about?

So your saying I said something like that to the other person, funny I usually dont stoop to those kind of comments, asking if someones being tampered with in their childhood, wich he inferred on me, do you even know what your talking about?

You have said similar things. In addition to calling people perverted, sick, and twisted just in the last several posts.

And, it is what I jokingly asked you.

It would explain your issues. But you are right it was not appropriate.

Not because it was insulting. But because the subject is not one to joke about.

But you cease to amuse me and we've entertained your off-topic issues with sex long enough.

No futher replies unless you are on-topic.

You have said similar things. In addition to calling people perverted, sick, and twisted just in the last several posts.

And, it is what I jokingly asked you.

It would explain your issues. But you are right it was not appropriate.

Not because it was insulting. But because the subject is not one to joke about.

But you cease to amuse me and we've entertained your off-topic issues with sex long enough.

No futher replies unless you are on-topic.

What people? I never got personal with anyone, are you trying to twist my opinion on people who like porn being sick into a personal attack on posters here who like porn, who disagree with me, because thats what it sounds like, I guess when the truth doesnt fit, you just like to stretch it abit it seems.

And you wont hear from me about the topic, Im sick to death of it, only a gay person would like to talk about gayness over and over again in different topics, its dull and boring now.

Now you're assuming that 'normal' and 'sick-minded' are mutually exclusive.

Unless it is normal to be sick, they are. Which would, of course, undermine the very notion of "sick minded".

I'm working within his framework here.

Can you put them up again, I honestly cant be bothered looking for them, thanks.

Normal is defined by the majority is it, so whats normal is subject to change in your mind then?
Thats a bit strange, you let a majority dictate to you what is normal and what isnt.

That's what normal means - I didn't invent the word, nor invoke the concept. It isn't my fault you can't understand your own argument.

Unless it is normal to be sick, they are. Which would, of course, undermine the very notion of "sick minded".
I'm working within his framework here.

OMG have alisten to yourself, your actually saying its normal to be sick, in this sense, if the majority of people are sick.
What if the majority of people, suddenly thought paedophilia wasnt so bad, would that then, going by your arguement, as to what defines normal, be normal then in your mind?

That's what normal means - I didn't invent the word, nor invoke the concept. It isn't my fault you can't understand your own argument.

Oh nice one, when we loose control of an arguement, we stoop to insults instead.
Sorry mate but just because the majority do something, that doesnt automatically necessitate it as normal. The majority of Germans condemned the Jews to death in WW2, so going by your simplistic angle on this, is that therefore normal?

Gud Nacht, Im going to bed.

OMG have alisten to yourself, your actually saying its normal to be sick, in this sense, if the majority of people are sick.
What if the majority of people, suddenly thought paedophilia wasnt so bad, would that then, going by your arguement, as to what defines normal, be normal then in your mind?

Nope, I'm saying that calling the majority of people "sick" is self contradictory. The Majority defines "healthy", therefore any claim that the majority are "sick" collapses into itself.

If the majority of people suddenly decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad, then it would be normal to think that pedophilia wasn't so bad. Normality refers to the typicality of any phenomenon - in the UK it is normal to vote for liberal candidates [be they Labour, Lib Dem, etc etc etc] as that is what the majority does. That doesn't change the nature of those candidates, it refers only to the typicality.

Specifically relating to pedophilia - the concept is *defined* by its deviation from the norm and the distress this causes. Like your 'sick' scenario, the argument collapses into itself.

Remember - you are the one who invoked normality as a standard.

Oh nice one, when we loose control of an arguement, we stoop to insults instead.
Sorry mate but just because the majority do something, that doesnt automatically necessitate it as normal. The majority of Germans condemned the Jews to death in WW2, so going by your simplistic angle on this, is that therefore normal?

Gud Nacht, Im going to bed.

Eh, yes it does - that is the *definition* of normal. This has been explained now by at least two people, with clear definitions posted upthread.

It was normal for Germans to condemn Jews, yes. That doesn't change the nature of the action - it relates only to its typicality.

Again, not my fault that you can't understand "normal".

Which round is it? :fluffle:
This topic could be beaten to death. Here is a thought. "we have to respect each others right to disagree." Obviously the both of you have different points that cant be met, thats turning into off the topic issues.

As far as "normal" is defined. Both of you actually had points. Normal setforth by society accounting majority determines the laws of the land we must follow (on a shallow note.) However, the germans killing the jews was a majority ruling. So indeed the term "normal" can be disputed. But then again, anything can. Thats what makes this damn world so great. Have a good one people.

Which round is it? :fluffle:
This topic could be beaten to death. Here is a thought. "we have to respect each others right to disagree." Obviously the both of you have different points that cant be met, thats turning into off the topic issues.

As far as "normal" is defined. Both of you actually had points. Normal setforth by society accounting majority determines the laws of the land we must follow (on a shallow note.) However, the germans killing the jews was a majority ruling. So indeed the term "normal" can be disputed. But then again, anything can. Thats what makes this damn world so great. Have a good one people.
The Germans killing the jews was a Nazi minority ruling. Stop claiming the Germans largely supported Hitler. That's an utter lie!

Ein Deutscher']The Germans killing the jews was a Nazi minority ruling. Stop claiming the Germans largely supported Hitler. That's an utter lie!

For my lack of definition you are absolutly right. My point was aimed more toward majority defining "normal." Yes it was a minority ruling for what happened there, so yes it counters majority ruling. All in all, I look at it in terms of simple state statue. How are laws set? Majority, excluding minority. Thats what determins normal =society.
Have a great day.

Civil Unions have been a clever political play, seeming divorcing homosexual marriage from the obligations of the Church. Natural law requires a male human and a female human to mate. I know of no instance when a man and man where given the same treatment, as far as the view of marriage in society is concerned, in the history of civilization. I do not think this societal change is justified.

I don't see it as a "societal change" but rather the normal extention as when slavery was put to an end, based upon our foundational principles as a country. IOW, "tradition" of society should not hold precedence over principle of country. Our country was not founded under "tradition" but rather clear and concise principles of liberty and freedom of the people.

The revolutionary war was fought between "traditionalist" tories and "principled" revolutionaries in our founding fathers....

The Civil War was more scewed, as both sides had "traditions" and "principles" and some segments of both sides were more "right" towards progressive principles of this nation than others... But it was another war between traditionalism and progressive principle thought.

"Tradition" advocated slaves, "tradition" opposed inter-racial mixing, "tradition" opposes application of equal rights in civil marriage to homosexuals. But where tradition does not match principle, such "tradition" should not hold sway...

so gays are considered a minority, right? well the minority is only the minority because there is more of the majority. so i, as a member of the majority, say screw gays and their rights....... if they think they are something special because they are just different, then they are completely off base... the only rights they deserve are patients rights, so they can be treated for their sicko disease

The United States does not exist and rights are not guranteed by mere "majority consensus"... We are a democratic republic, founded upon principles that exist even above that of the majority.

Maybe you should look at the Thomas Paine quote in my sig.... Before your own precedent comes back and bites you in the ass one day...

i dont think gays rights are taken away... what exactly are we complaining about... they have the freedoms that everyone else has. they are equally protected under the law. they are protected under the constitution. I personally think homosexuality isn't normal... but my opinions dont create laws... so exactly what RIGHTS are gays missing, that every other person has?

if you want to say the marriage thing... the BENEFITS that go along with marriage (which happens to be a religious institution) are (and i must reiterate) BENEFITS... im not married and i dont have them.. im in love with someone, and we dont have them, my little sister doesnt have them. the single ppl in america dont have them... they are benefits, not rights, which are what need to be upheld by the law...

Marriage is a civil institution, to which relgions are allowed by civil authority to perform ceremonies upon persons applicable to the marrital statutes. However, they are not the only ones granted authority under the statutes to over-see the signing of the contract to which the spouses become part to in the marrital license, as such, it is not limited only to religious connotations.

As such, no advocation is made here to force churches to perform ceremonies with parties not applicable to their particular institutional beliefs; but rather applicability of the statutes fairly upon homosexual partners to enter into this contractural civil marrital union, the ceremony to be performed by those institutions and authorotative appointments which may over-see such.

All this talk about discrimination got me thinking, that a lot of people seem to somehow make this starnge parallel discrimination <--> evil. This is not true. Even now there is a lot of people get discriminated for (IMHO) very valid reasons and nobody questions such a practice. For example we do not allow blind people to get driver licenses and drive. We do not allow diagnosed homicidal maniacs to walk around as they please. Is it a discrimination against blind and mentaly handicapped? Of course. Is it a "good" discrimination? I think so.

One persons rights end where anothers begins. A "blind man" driving posses a danger to other people if driving. Same goes with a "homicidal maniac" running the streets. That is, everyone possesses all of their rights to the extend where their operation of rights do not put an end to anothers rights.


In this case, I think that before we allow (for example) adoption by gay people, we need to have conclusive studies showing that children raised in such families are not more prone to any psychological problems.

This is about marriage, not adoption.... Adoption is not a right, but a grant. Merely being married does not entitle you to adoption. The welfare of the child is the most concern. So you are right about the Adoption issue, but this is not about an adoption issue, this is about a marrital issue.


For gay people in the army service, we need a conclusive study showing that introduction of gay personel into a combat unit doesn't, for example, affect morale.

If you served 4 years aboard a United States nuclear powered submarine, you'ld change your views.... We're all sick perverted little bastards, who make illusions towards homosexual behavior on a normative basis. We're also one of the most tight-knit units you could imagine... When one crewman deep-throats a hotdog in the crews mess, and his buddy asks him to stop by his rack later that night, in invokes laughter, and not homophobic mentalities.

A certain YN2 on the helm tells the OOD, "I really like you sir....". The OOD says "I like you too...", the YN2 responds "No sir, I mean I like you...". "Um," says the OOD, "I don't swing that way....". A YN3 enters the control room to get signatures from the OOD.... the YN2 says, "I told LT (such-n-such) that I like him, but he doesn't like me...."... To which the YN3 says "Oh, I like you too sir" and promptly kisses him on the cheek.

It made a great way to pass time on those 6-hour watches while deployed.

-Former FT1/SS, USS Hampton, SSN-767.


Obviously, with current administration's stupid conservative views such studies are not ever going to be undertaken and I think it is bad. But I also think that just blindly screaming discrimination without exploring potential harmful effects is not such a grand idea.

Once again, we're screaming discimination in marrital relations for homosexuals, not for adoptive practices. Since marriage only effects the partners to the marriage, their applicability should not be determinative by the populous as a whole.


Another thought is about several people mentioning punishment for discrimination. This (IMHO) is ridiculous. I think it is my right top think however good or bad about anybody for any reason. It is also my right to express my opinion in any way I choose. If I think George Bush is stupid I can say so, make a web site that says so and go around the street in a "Bush is stupid" t-shirt. If I think gay people (or black people or people in glasses or people with red hair) are evil I can say so, I can make a web site and I can wear a t-shirt. As a business owner, I can hire a person or not for any reason I want to, so if I am a single straight japanese male and I want al of my employees to be young attractive single straight japanese females I should be able to, given the fact that I might have to look harder than if I had less strict criterias. What exactly is wrong with that? Now, discrimination by goverment is definitely bad, but as an individual (or a group of individuals) I can hate anyone I want as long as I am not breaking any laws (i.e. not actually physically hurting or killing anyone). I think that US legal system has somewhere lost the sight of common sense in such issues.

That I agree with, a companies hiring policy is a private matter of the company... But my beef is legislative discrimination by the government upon classes of people under arbitrary reasons which have no impact upon the rights of others.... Homosexual marriage fits this category. There is no valid grounds within the realm of our principles as a country, for denial of homosexuals the rights to enter into a marrital union in civil law.

if you want to say the marriage thing... the BENEFITS that go along with marriage (which happens to be a religious institution) are (and i must reiterate) BENEFITS... im not married and i dont have them.. im in love with someone, and we dont have them, my little sister doesnt have them. the single ppl in america dont have them... they are benefits, not rights, which are what need to be upheld by the law...

(a) If you got married, you would have the benefits, see? You have the opportunity to do so (unless you are under age, and then you need parental permission).

(b) Meanwhile, if the government provides benefits, it must do so equally. The state cannot deny a driver's license to someone based on their sexuality, so why should they be able to deny a marriage license to a couple on that basis?

Well said, Dempublicents.

Which round is it? :fluffle:
This topic could be beaten to death. Here is a thought. "we have to respect each others right to disagree." Obviously the both of you have different points that cant be met, thats turning into off the topic issues.

As far as "normal" is defined. Both of you actually had points. Normal setforth by society accounting majority determines the laws of the land we must follow (on a shallow note.) However, the germans killing the jews was a majority ruling. So indeed the term "normal" can be disputed. But then again, anything can. Thats what makes this damn world so great. Have a good one people.

Sorry, but I must correct a common canard.

Respecting another's right to disagree does not mean the same thing as agreeing or respecting another's opinion.

I believe firmly in free speech. I, for example, respect the right of Nazi to his/her opinions and right to express them. But I will vehemently denounce their stupidity and evilness. That is my right.

And "normal" does not equal good or bad. It was defined earlier, but a common meaning is that things that are the norm are normal. Activities carried out routinely by the vast majority of a group are normal for that group. Doesn't make them right or good. It does make them normal for that group.

But I do agree the side-topic was way over-discussed. I raised that point myself.

Can you put them up again, I honestly cant be bothered looking for them, thanks.

Normal is defined by the majority is it, so whats normal is subject to change in your mind then?
Thats a bit strange, you let a majority dictate to you what is normal and what isnt.
Being to lazy to find an answer that was provided is no excuse. If you wish to learn find the links if not too bad

Hello, this is my first post, so bear with me if I'm repeating some things, I've only read the past few pages.

The arguments that seem to jump out seem to be concerned mainly about equality of homosexuals as humans, with many people not knowing how gay people have different rights. Now, I don't live in the US, so I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but I know that Article IV, Section 2, says: "Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Now, bear with me, but doesn't that mean that everyone, including homosexuals, is allowed the same rights and privileges? Therefore they are entitled to civil marriages (I'm ignoring religious marriages, as it is unfair to force the Church or any other religion to marry two people whom they have a moral problem with)? So, I fail to see where the discussion is?

And, as for the pornography issue, and it's availability to children, teaching children (i.e. in schools, by parents, etc.) about "the birds and the bees" from an early age is a good idea. What would you prefer; for it to hit them as a shock when they get to 13? I can see that: Oh, so that's what that thing's for?.

I've probably started you all off now, haven't I?

I think we should sell tickets if Tekania and Cat-Tribe debate one another. It should be required that you announce such a happening. It'd be absolutely criminal to deprive us of the chance to witness such a spectacle.

I think we should sell tickets if Tekania and Cat-Tribe debate one another. It should be required that you announce such a happening. It'd be absolutely criminal to deprive us of the chance to witness such a spectacle.

There are issues we disagree on.... to some extent... But not too many. Across most of the board, when it comes to individual liberties, we are on par.... Probably would change if it involved economic models and the like; me being libertarian and all. It is obvious we agree on gay-rights though, from this thread.

I know we disagree on matters of Second Amendment rights.

Not sure where Cat stands on the scope of principle of clause 1 of the First Amendment.... Though I'm certain we line up on other issues in regards to the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution.

I don't know if you people notice, but people always say, "Gays should have the same rights as everyone else."

In fact, they already have all the same rights. Because everyone else has them.

Gays have the right to marry the opposite sex, just like a straight person does, for example.

Please TG me if/when the event occurs. :D

I don't know if you people notice, but people always say, "Gays should have the same rights as everyone else."

In fact, they already have all the same rights. Because everyone else has them.

Gays have the right to marry the opposite sex, just like a straight person does, for example.
first of all this was covered about a thousand times in this thread I probably should not even bother replying anymore because you obviously did not read the first few pages

but here it is

Why do you have a problem with gay marrige it would also alow everyone (including straits) to marry people of the same gender as well
So it too is a freedom for all

I don't know if you people notice, but people always say, "Gays should have the same rights as everyone else."

In fact, they already have all the same rights. Because everyone else has them.

Gays have the right to marry the opposite sex, just like a straight person does, for example.

I think it's more of a fact that heterosexuals can marry who they want, whereas homosexuals can't. Heterosexuals have the same rights as homosexuals, it's just that straight people have the added right to marry the person of their choice.