NationStates Jolt Archive

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 don't know if you've noticed, but that specious arguement has been done to death. I have the right to marry the lover of my choice, because it would be a man. My best friend doesn't have the right to marry the love of his choice because it's a man.
Your arguement could also be used to prevent inter-racial marrages. Are you one of those people?
Think about it. If you've already thought about it, try harder.

Tossing in my two cents: "Yay, for equality." So yeah...I'm all about gay rights.

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.

I agree that government employers should be banned from discriminating, but who private employers employ is their business. If private employers decide to be homophobic or racist in their hiring policies, they are only cutting off resource pools to themselves. See my post #633 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8812501&postcount=633).

Who isn't as straight as he'd like to think, too.
And probably has a small dick as well, the poor bastard.

(is this too much of a flame?) if yes edit out the above

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?
Obviously feels the need to make up for something else...

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...
You do have the right to get married, you're just not availing of it. Gays don't even have that.

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.

Actually, marriage is about getting benefits and priviledges. Which is why gays should have it too. "Love" is not a reason that stands up to legal scrutiny.

I take it your single?
Why would you think that? Let me guess, you think masturbating is "sad"? Does that include mutual masturbation with my g/f? :D

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.
Most homophobes are idiots. Among the intelligent ones, there are the mean-spirited assholes you mentioned, and then there are those who think that the redefinition of marriage would actually harm society. :rolleyes:

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

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.

Seems that your grievance is with your local newsagent owner rather than with society or the government.

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

Fun for all ages ... enough said.
So do you think all sex is a sin/perverted/evil, or would missionary position be acceptable within marriage?

My my we do have a twisted little mind dont we?
What else do you evoke as normal, sex with dogs?
No, because sex with dogs is not practiced by most people.

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.
No, Nazis thought everything except marital, Aryan sex was degenerate. And it's Führer.

Ill leave you to watch some total strangers copulating on screen while you have a wank, because your the normal one. ;)
Erm, yes, so I will. (Actually I don't use porn myself, I find my imagination to be much better.) And it's you're :D


I agree with you 100% about the dogs, I didnt bring them into this either.
Actually, you were the first one to mention beastiality.

There shouldn't be laws banning an ethical issue. Being a homosexual doesn't hurt anyone and it infringes upon no part of the constitution. Although legislation should exist but not to constrict ones rights.

There shouldn't be laws banning an ethical issue. Being a homosexual doesn't hurt anyone and it infringes upon no part of the constitution. Although legislation should exist but not to constrict ones rights.


You're right!
They are sometimes better people than us.

In spite of you going over to the dark side, that was great Swimmingpool. :fluffle:

-snip-

Hey, I don't give a damn if you're not finished with those two, massive crates of cookies. I'm sending you another two!

gays have the same rights as everyone else. The only thing that they bitch about is getting married.

they say that it's not that they arn't aloud to marry it's that they dont get the benafits associated with it.

so I say we give them somthing that just like maridge, and we give them all of the benafits that they want and then we call it somthing else to keep the pope of our backs. Simple eh?

gays have the same rights as everyone else. The only thing that they bitch about is getting married.

they say that it's not that they arn't aloud to marry it's that they dont get the benafits associated with it.

so I say we give them somthing that just like maridge, and we give them all of the benafits that they want and then we call it somthing else to keep the pope of our backs. Simple eh?

I proposed that we call it "Gay Marriage"

Hey I just got Gay MArried! I cant Wait for our Gay HOneymoon and years of Gay Anniversaries. Although what problem do you see with it just being called marriage for them too?

First off, for any new posters: I know its a long thread but please read over at least the first 30 or so when making the argument gays already have the rights of straits. The list is there waiting to be read.

Interesting things I've noticed:
*when discusing 'icky gays' it has so far refered to men. I think it is interesting that when a post has been gendered, I have yet to see fithly evil lesbians. (The most noticible is when discussing armed forces. Only men have been discussed. Would a lesbian not disrupt a unit with that thinking)
Also, nothing on Trans or intersexed. I have a very dear Trans (male to female) friend who has a boat load of discrimination issues. Just imagine the looks she gets in the bathroom.
*Marriage: the gay marriage vs civil union thread has been done before. Just a note on 'Xian bible makes it better marriage'....didn't Paul say it would be best to "be as I am"....unwed? And don't forget early marriage (and some marriage now) was all about property! I'll give you 2 goats and a donkey for your daughter. What do you think a dowery is?
*Gay adoption: why do people become so concered with a childs welfare in adoption yet I can pop babies out like a mad woman and no one can tell me no? I'm still a lesbian with a child....Am I doing them less harm because I spawned them instead of adopting them?
*Family: I wonder if we are actually hurting the modern family by restricting it to a male/female raise the kids. Ever hear the phrase it takes a village to raise a child? I say the more people willing to help raise a child the better.
*cat-tribe- totally off topic-learning you were male on this thread just doesn't work for me. Can you forgive me for still thinking "she" when I see your name? :)
*Tradition- watch Fiddler on the Roof. Not all tradition should be followed. Heck, just watch Fiddler anyway...if I were a rich man...
*majority - I know the goverment thread has been well and truly done, just a reminder the fact that you aren't part of the party in power does not negate your rights as a citizen. (sorry, don't remember who I quoted that from) LGBT folks may be a minority, but we still count.

Ok, done for now. Big group hugs and warm fuzzy feelings

First off, for any new posters: I know its a long thread but please read over at least the first 30 or so when making the argument gays already have the rights of straits. The list is there waiting to be read.

Interesting things I've noticed:
*when discusing 'icky gays' it has so far refered to men. I think it is interesting that when a post has been gendered, I have yet to see fithly evil lesbians. (The most noticible is when discussing armed forces. Only men have been discussed. Would a lesbian not disrupt a unit with that thinking)
Also, nothing on Trans or intersexed. I have a very dear Trans (male to female) friend who has a boat load of discrimination issues. Just imagine the looks she gets in the bathroom.
*Marriage: the gay marriage vs civil union thread has been done before. Just a note on 'Xian bible makes it better marriage'....didn't Paul say it would be best to "be as I am"....unwed? And don't forget early marriage (and some marriage now) was all about property! I'll give you 2 goats and a donkey for your daughter. What do you think a dowery is?
*Gay adoption: why do people become so concered with a childs welfare in adoption yet I can pop babies out like a mad woman and no one can tell me no? I'm still a lesbian with a child....Am I doing them less harm because I spawned them instead of adopting them?
*Family: I wonder if we are actually hurting the modern family by restricting it to a male/female raise the kids. Ever hear the phrase it takes a village to raise a child? I say the more people willing to help raise a child the better.
*cat-tribe- totally off topic-learning you were male on this thread just doesn't work for me. Can you forgive me for still thinking "she" when I see your name? :)
*Tradition- watch Fiddler on the Roof. Not all tradition should be followed. Heck, just watch Fiddler anyway...if I were a rich man...
*majority - I know the goverment thread has been well and truly done, just a reminder the fact that you aren't part of the party in power does not negate your rights as a citizen. (sorry, don't remember who I quoted that from) LGBT folks may be a minority, but we still count.

Ok, done for now. Big group hugs and warm fuzzy feelings

:fluffle:

Originally Posted by Matchopolis
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.

Native American tribes - Lakota among others- have a designation of Bedarches (spelling is iffy, I don't have it in front of me to double check..sorry) It is a male or female who is treated as the opposite gender IN ALL WAYS! Sitting Bull married a Bedarche "wife". Actually a genetic male but for their society, a female.
fun historty facts.

gays have the same rights as everyone else. The only thing that they bitch about is getting married.

they say that it's not that they arn't aloud to marry it's that they dont get the benafits associated with it.

so I say we give them somthing that just like maridge, and we give them all of the benafits that they want and then we call it somthing else to keep the pope of our backs. Simple eh?


Yes, because separate and equal has worked so well in the past. :rolleyes:

gays have the same rights as everyone else. The only thing that they bitch about is getting married.

they say that it's not that they arn't aloud to marry it's that they dont get the benafits associated with it.

so I say we give them somthing that just like maridge, and we give them all of the benafits that they want and then we call it somthing else to keep the pope of our backs. Simple eh?

In merry ol' England (lol) there are civil unions, which are only available to homosexual couples, which are similar to what you have described. But why should they be given different rights? Why not allow them to do the same as what straight couples and marry?

*cat-tribe- totally off topic-learning you were male on this thread just doesn't work for me. Can you forgive me for still thinking "she" when I see your name? :)

Ok, done for now. Big group hugs and warm fuzzy feelings

That's cause we naturally expect someone that brainy to be a girl. :D

First off, for any new posters: I know its a long thread but please read over at least the first 30 or so when making the argument gays already have the rights of straits. The list is there waiting to be read.

Interesting things I've noticed:
*when discusing 'icky gays' it has so far refered to men. I think it is interesting that when a post has been gendered, I have yet to see fithly evil lesbians. (The most noticible is when discussing armed forces. Only men have been discussed. Would a lesbian not disrupt a unit with that thinking)
Also, nothing on Trans or intersexed. I have a very dear Trans (male to female) friend who has a boat load of discrimination issues. Just imagine the looks she gets in the bathroom.
*Marriage: the gay marriage vs civil union thread has been done before. Just a note on 'Xian bible makes it better marriage'....didn't Paul say it would be best to "be as I am"....unwed? And don't forget early marriage (and some marriage now) was all about property! I'll give you 2 goats and a donkey for your daughter. What do you think a dowery is?
*Gay adoption: why do people become so concered with a childs welfare in adoption yet I can pop babies out like a mad woman and no one can tell me no? I'm still a lesbian with a child....Am I doing them less harm because I spawned them instead of adopting them?
*Family: I wonder if we are actually hurting the modern family by restricting it to a male/female raise the kids. Ever hear the phrase it takes a village to raise a child? I say the more people willing to help raise a child the better.
*snip*
*Tradition- watch Fiddler on the Roof. Not all tradition should be followed. Heck, just watch Fiddler anyway...if I were a rich man...
*majority - I know the goverment thread has been well and truly done, just a reminder the fact that you aren't part of the party in power does not negate your rights as a citizen. (sorry, don't remember who I quoted that from) LGBT folks may be a minority, but we still count.

Ok, done for now. Big group hugs and warm fuzzy feelings[/QUOTE]

Well said. :fluffle:

*cat-tribe- totally off topic-learning you were male on this thread just doesn't work for me. Can you forgive me for still thinking "she" when I see your name? :)

No worries.

I tend to imagine lots of images for other posters. Like Penelope Cruz in a short plaid skirt .... [CENSORED]

:D

I tend to imagine lots of images for other posters. Like Penelope Cruz in a short plaid skirt .... [CENSORED]

:D


hmmmm, Johnny Depp....drooooolllllll. Naked. With a keyboard. And a mouse. No, not that kind of mouse, save that for gerbils :D
sigh

I tend to imagine lots of images for other posters. Like Penelope Cruz in a short plaid skirt .... [CENSORED]
:D

And here I thought you were gay. <sighs> Another dream down the drain. Guess I'll have to fall back on Sean Maher again.

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".

Oh yeah. people who agree with you, makes you right, sorry I disagree, your version of normal, based purely on what you think the majority of people do in society doesnt come up to scratch. It was 'normal' for Germans to condemn Jews, no it wasnt actually, they were pushed into it by bullyboy tactics from the Nazis, who intimidated and beat up everyone who wouldnt hassel the Jews.
Comprende??

First off, for any new posters: I know its a long thread but please read over at least the first 30 or so when making the argument gays already have the rights of straits. The list is there waiting to be read.

Agree on that point. It's tiring seeing new people bring in the same old argument we beat to death pages ago.


Interesting things I've noticed:
*when discusing 'icky gays' it has so far refered to men. I think it is interesting that when a post has been gendered, I have yet to see fithly evil lesbians. (The most noticible is when discussing armed forces. Only men have been discussed. Would a lesbian not disrupt a unit with that thinking)

Because they find lesbians cool... And would probably not miss a heart beat, if it allowed them to keep lesbians as pets... Sickos.


Also, nothing on Trans or intersexed. I have a very dear Trans (male to female) friend who has a boat load of discrimination issues. Just imagine the looks she gets in the bathroom.

Actually I raised intersex issues, especially in regards to CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) and Turner's Syndrome.


*Marriage: the gay marriage vs civil union thread has been done before. Just a note on 'Xian bible makes it better marriage'....didn't Paul say it would be best to "be as I am"....unwed? And don't forget early marriage (and some marriage now) was all about property! I'll give you 2 goats and a donkey for your daughter. What do you think a dowery is?

They don't actually see marriage as "biblical" though that is where their appeal always is. They actually handle marriage as a Roman concept, likely in decend of the powerful Roman Church which has grabed power from the old Fallen Empire of Rome post-biblical times.... Their actual support is with Caesar Augustus, and his Civil Empire, rather than with the Apostle Paul and any biblical source.


*Gay adoption: why do people become so concered with a childs welfare in adoption yet I can pop babies out like a mad woman and no one can tell me no? I'm still a lesbian with a child....Am I doing them less harm because I spawned them instead of adopting them?

Don't give them ideas, they may come up with some sort of forced sterilization, should they ever actually manage to usurp the foundation of this country and gain actual power.


*Family: I wonder if we are actually hurting the modern family by restricting it to a male/female raise the kids. Ever hear the phrase it takes a village to raise a child? I say the more people willing to help raise a child the better.
*cat-tribe- totally off topic-learning you were male on this thread just doesn't work for me. Can you forgive me for still thinking "she" when I see your name? :)

Good point.... Of course, you must realize the average person against this is against it for communal reasons. IE they have been "told" they are "supposed" to be against it because it is "against" the "christian foundation" of their "country"... It's a load of B.S. So don't be surprised when their arguments fail scrutiny.


*Tradition- watch Fiddler on the Roof. Not all tradition should be followed. Heck, just watch Fiddler anyway...if I were a rich man...

Yes, tradition..... Something this country was not founded upon. I'd rather follow the "anachy" and "rebelliousness" of our founding fathers, as opposed to the strict traditionalism of the Tories which opposed the formation of our nation.... Looks like not all the torries left.


*majority - I know the goverment thread has been well and truly done, just a reminder the fact that you aren't part of the party in power does not negate your rights as a citizen. (sorry, don't remember who I quoted that from) LGBT folks may be a minority, but we still count.


You'll notice how their logic goes.... When things don't go their way, and their the majority, they argue the majority should rule.... When things don't fo their way, and their the minority, they argue this is not democratic, and the minority should be protected. I don't completely fault them for this, however, this is a trend I've noticed from many liberals and conservatives.. It seems more of a trend of the nation, as opposed to a trend particular to only a single group.... Neither side wants to completely deal with the reality of our system, and think in terms of both majority consensus + responsibilities towards minority groups... So they alter their base, depending on the issue and how things go for them.... IE, both sides want to have their cake and eat it.... However, in reality, this is not how things always work.


Ok, done for now. Big group hugs and warm fuzzy feelings

Yeppers...

Because they find lesbians cool... And would probably not miss a heart beat, if it allowed them to keep lesbians as pets... Sickos.


I presently own four, two of them are starting to get abit old but, so I might trade them in at the Lesopet shop. :)

I presently own four, two of them are starting to get abit old but, so I might trade them in at the Lesopet shop. :)

Anyone play the sims? I had pet lesbians, thier house was fully stocked so I could see em work out, use the hot tub , and play thier lesbian games. ;)

My pet lesbians arent allowed to talk, they can moan of course. :)

gays have the same rights as everyone else. The only thing that they bitch about is getting married.

And not being able to serve in the armed services. And not being able to give blood or (more recently) sperm donations.

they say that it's not that they arn't aloud to marry it's that they dont get the benafits associated with it.

From a legal standpoint, marriage is the legal benefits associated with it.

so I say we give them somthing that just like maridge, and we give them all of the benafits that they want and then we call it somthing else to keep the pope of our backs. Simple eh?

Separate but equal, eh? Yeah, I think we tried that once before.

Oh yeah. people who agree with you, makes you right, sorry I disagree, your version of normal, based purely on what you think the majority of people do in society doesnt come up to scratch.

It has nothing to do with "versions" of normal. It is the very definition of normal.

It was 'normal' for Germans to condemn Jews, no it wasnt actually, they were pushed into it by bullyboy tactics from the Nazis, who intimidated and beat up everyone who wouldnt hassel the Jews.
Comprende??

The reason behind it is irrelevant. If most of them were doing it, then it was normal.

You seem to want to attach a moral value onto the word "normal", but morality has nothign to do with what is and is not normal.

Actually, gays are asking for marriage. It is usually straights who propose civil unions.
Bingo!

Marriage was/is a religious institution that government has co-opted and regulated to death. (Where the hell was "separation of church and state" when this shit started???)

Gays and the government need to back the hell out of the RELIGIOUS institution of marriage. The government has the right to make any regulation/law regarding "civil unions" that it wants, but not to twist the institution of "marriage".

Pardon my "rantiness", but the whole subject of gay "marriage" pisses me off.

Gay rights good.

Human rights good.

Discrimination bad.

Homophobia bad.

Any questions?


F**k**g fags,

Other than that, why should they have any more or less rights than any other human being?

I am no friend of gay people, but they are people like everyone else and deserve the same rights.

Bingo!

Marriage was/is a religious institution that government has co-opted and regulated to death. (Where the hell was "separation of church and state" when this shit started???)

Gays and the government need to back the hell out of the RELIGIOUS institution of marriage. The government has the right to make any regulation/law regarding "civil unions" that it wants, but not to twist the institution of "marriage".

Pardon my "rantiness", but the whole subject of gay "marriage" pisses me off.

Language is always evolving. Once the government created a legal institution of marriage, the word came to have more than one meaning in those societies in which there are such institutions. We now have a religious institution and a separate legal institution. What you call it is irrelevant.

I am no friend of gay people, but they are people like everyone else and deserve the same rights. It's nice that you can admit to your prejeduce and I pray that, with counciling, you learn to overcome your endemic intolerance and lack of understanding.

It's nice that you can admit to your prejeduce and I pray that, with counciling, you learn to overcome your endemic intolerance and lack of understanding.

Brainwashing.

Brainwashing.

Easily circumvented by one of those wrinkly metal hats.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]It has nothing to do with "versions" of normal. It is the very definition of normal.

So your version of normal depends on what the majority of people are doing to make it so, at the time, thats open to a lot of question.


The reason behind it is irrelevant. If most of them were doing it, then it was normal.
You seem to want to attach a moral value onto the word "normal", but morality has nothign to do with what is and is not normal.

In one sense, yes, but you cant then apply whats normal in say nearly all trees have leaves, so its normal for trees to have leaves, kind of arguement.
Hypothetically, if the majority of society became paedophiles, would you call that normal?

Easily circumvented by one of those wrinkly metal hats.

Work did it?

Work did it?

No, you're still ranting. :)

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.

Ya know, for someone who posted the above statement, you sure are posting a heck of a lot in this thread. Just an observation. ;)

No, you're still ranting. :)

But Im not wearing one, you are. :)

Ya know, for someone who posted the above statement, you sure are posting a heck of a lot in this thread. Just an observation. ;)
Your right.
DOH!

I can see from the HUGE volume of posts that this is a hotly debated issue, and having read through about half of them I decided that it would take hours to read them all. Hence I jump in here.

Surely the issue of marriage is a moral one. Marriage has had a long history in religion as a religious ceremony according to the rules of that religion. Marriage as we know it now is a cut and paste of that joining of what was man and woman stretched to meet current needs. This makes the whole thing a lot more of a mess than it needs to be. The gay issue within religion... don't let's get started on that because it is a quagmire. Even within Christianity it is confused worldwide.

I come back to a question mentioned earlier. What do homosexuals (the word gay these days seems to have wrongly brought on too many negative connotations) want from marriage? Do they want to be legally recognised and thus have the benefits/drawbacks on such issues as tax from that? Do they want it for demonstrative purposes to show there love? I believe that if either of the answers to these questions is 'yes' than a separate union would be appropriate. Or even make civil union open to all, and leave marriage to avoid the mess of religion.

As a moral issue it is difficult. How can it be decided? Where can we draw the distinction upon what is right and wrong and who decides? There are many people in the world who believe homosexual marriage or even homosexuality as a whole is morally wrong as a choice. We cannot deny these people those beliefs else we are discriminating against them. National referendums would leave a large group of the population dissatisfied whether pro or anti-homosexuality. The issue of race has been compared here. Unfortunately, the difference is that race is purely genetic where sexuality has a large founding in the nurture principle- what one's childhood was like, what one's experience of relationships was like and a further myriad of possibilities which would define that choice. The choice may be sub-conscious, it may be conscious; it may be free or not. That is where the unfortunate distinction lies between what in theory CAN be helped and what CAN'T. And this makes the issue impossible to decide justly.

There are many theories of justice. Utilitarianism suggests that whatever produces the most happiess for society is just. The problem ther is that homosexuals are a minority group so this would suggest that homosexuality is not just. Natural Law, as advocated by Aquinas, would say that law derives from a divine power (ie God) and Christianity has seemed to ban homosexuality by traditional interpretations of religious texts. Positive law would say that any law made should be followed so long as the procedure is correct. The US politicians may have the wrong views or may not, but their objection to homosexual marriage is not unlawful in itself. The problem is that the Constitution was, as I understand it, not written to take into account homosexuality which was a much less known sexual preference at the time. So you see the problem! :(

I personally do not oppose homosexuality. I do believe that an entirely homosexual society would not be healthy with only the utilisation of donors to maintain the human race. I think that would be bad, but I do believe that homosexuals if that is there choice should have a position in society. I believe that position is difficult to define.

I say equal rights for all, ya know, that whole thing in the constitution about all men (and women now, woohoo) being created equal.

Bingo!

Marriage was/is a religious institution that government has co-opted and regulated to death. (Where the hell was "separation of church and state" when this shit started???)

Gays and the government need to back the hell out of the RELIGIOUS institution of marriage. The government has the right to make any regulation/law regarding "civil unions" that it wants, but not to twist the institution of "marriage".

Pardon my "rantiness", but the whole subject of gay "marriage" pisses me off.


So if marriage is solely a religious issue that the government shouldn't be involved in, you will have no problem with religions that say polygamy and gay marriage are okay, right? Further, you will have no problem with having to get married in your religious setting and then go get "unionized" at a government office to get the rights associated with marriage.

So your version of normal depends on what the majority of people are doing to make it so, at the time, thats open to a lot of question.

That is the definition of normal. Again, stop trying to put morality onto a word that involves none.

In one sense, yes, but you cant then apply whats normal in say nearly all trees have leaves, so its normal for trees to have leaves, kind of arguement.
Hypothetically, if the majority of society became paedophiles, would you call that normal?

Yes, that would be normal. I would still call it immoral to act on it. But it would be normal.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]That is the definition of normal. Again, stop trying to put morality onto a word that involves none.

No thats just the pc version of normal, so any sick act is accepted.

Yes, that would be normal. I would still call it immoral to act on it. But it would be normal.

Eww!

How can you even attach the word normal to paedophilia? ??
You really need to check your prioritys here, mate!!!

No thats just the pc version of normal, so any sick act is accepted.



Eww!

How can you even attach the word normal to paedophilia? ??
You really need to check your prioritys here, mate!!!
:headbang:
Pick up a dictionary. Read the definition for 'normal'.
You will get something like "a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern".

BY DEFINITION, something which is the norm, is normal. So by the very definition of the word, if everybody was a paedophile, it would be the norm, and therefore normal.

Unless you have some new use of the word 'normal' you'd like to share with us?

:headbang:
Pick up a dictionary. Read the definition for 'normal'.
You will get something like "a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern".
BY DEFINITION, something which is the norm, is normal. So by the very definition of the word, if everybody was a paedophile, it would be the norm, and therefore normal.
Unless you have some new use of the word 'normal' you'd like to share with us?

OMG, Its actually sad that you would believe that, so if every one was a paedophile, you would think that was normal, big EWWWW!!

OMG, Its actually sad that you would believe that, so if every one was a paedophile, you would think that was normal, big EWWWW!!
Well then, tell me your definition of 'normal', as you haven't yet offered an alternate one. All you've done is poke fun at people who disagree with you.

No thats just the pc version of normal, so any sick act is accepted.

As has been explained several times --with citations -- it is the dictionary definition of normal.

You wish to confuse the word with moral.

Let us look at yet another dictionary -- the definitive Oxford English Dictionary:

A. adj. I. General uses.

1. Of a verb: regular, typical. Obs. rare1.

2. a. Constituting or conforming to a type or standard; regular, usual, typical; ordinary, conventional. (The usual sense.)
N.E.D. (1907) notes ‘Common since c1840.’

b. Of a person: physically and mentally sound; free from any disorder; healthy.

If you wish to argue about the meaning of the word with the OED, be my guest. Do us a favor and post the correspondence.



You are playing the fatuous role of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

There's glory for you!

Eww!

How can you even attach the word normal to paedophilia? ??
You really need to check your prioritys here, mate!!!

See above, friend.

Not to mention that pedophilia is not normal because (a) it deviates from the norm and (b) it is a mental disorder. So it fails under two of the definitions of normal used in this dicussion.

It is immoral for different reasons than do not change whether or not it is normal.

Well then, tell me your definition of 'normal', as you haven't yet offered an alternate one. All you've done is poke fun at people who disagree with you.
I havent poked fun at all, I just fail to see how anyone could see that behaviour, no matter how many people carry it out, as normal.
Because it is not normal to have sex with children, as there is no justifiable reason for it. So to apply this word to that behaviour is abnormal if anything. You shouldnt let some book dictate to you definitions, without questioning some of them, especially one that changes as much as this one.
My definition of 'normal' would definitly not include paedophilia for above reason given.
To ever say paedophilia is considered normal behavior, because a majority of people in a society do it, would have to bring under question the very meaning of the word normal.
Id say the majority of that society, is sick in the head, and that isnt normal.

Not to mention that pedophilia is not normal because (a) it deviates from the norm and (b) it is a mental disorder. So it fails under two of the definitions of normal used in this dicussion.
It is immoral for different reasons than do not change whether or not it is normal.

But if the majority of society had no problem with it, then according to the other poster, it would by the dictionarys definition be normal!!
I like how you poked fun at my Aussie lingo too, your so mature. :rolleyes: not.

Can you prove its a mental disorder?
I dont think it is.

I can see from the HUGE volume of posts that this is a hotly debated issue, and having read through about half of them I decided that it would take hours to read them all. Hence I jump in here.

Surely the issue of marriage is a moral one. Marriage has had a long history in religion as a religious ceremony according to the rules of that religion. Marriage as we know it now is a cut and paste of that joining of what was man and woman stretched to meet current needs. This makes the whole thing a lot more of a mess than it needs to be. The gay issue within religion... don't let's get started on that because it is a quagmire. Even within Christianity it is confused worldwide.
Marriage isn't a moral issue at all. It is a legal issue. Churches don't control marriages or the marriage process, the government does. You don't need a priest to marry you, just a certified celebrant whom may or may not be religious. Just because in the past people have often, though not always, been married in a place of worship or religious significance, does not mean it has any actual influence on the marriage process except for how it is celebrated.

Also, there are many religions out there, why would marriage have to conform to the rules of any one of them more than another? Would muslims be banned from getting married if it were up to the catholic church and vice versa?

I come back to a question mentioned earlier. What do homosexuals (the word gay these days seems to have wrongly brought on too many negative connotations) want from marriage? Do they want to be legally recognised and thus have the benefits/drawbacks on such issues as tax from that? Do they want it for demonstrative purposes to show there love? I believe that if either of the answers to these questions is 'yes' than a separate union would be appropriate. Or even make civil union open to all, and leave marriage to avoid the mess of religion.
The mess of religion? Once again, religion has nothing to do with marriage and not all religions are as against homosexuality as others. As for why they want marriage, they want it for the same reasons any heterosexual couple does. In regards to civil unions, they are an insult. Homosexuals should have equal rights, including that to get married, not something else with a different name to keep them quiet. Having a seperate legal union for them is like having different drinking taps for blacks and whites, sure they still get the water but it's blatent discrimination.

As a moral issue it is difficult. How can it be decided? Where can we draw the distinction upon what is right and wrong and who decides? There are many people in the world who believe homosexual marriage or even homosexuality as a whole is morally wrong as a choice. We cannot deny these people those beliefs else we are discriminating against them. National referendums would leave a large group of the population dissatisfied whether pro or anti-homosexuality. The issue of race has been compared here. Unfortunately, the difference is that race is purely genetic where sexuality has a large founding in the nurture principle- what one's childhood was like, what one's experience of relationships was like and a further myriad of possibilities which would define that choice. The choice may be sub-conscious, it may be conscious; it may be free or not. That is where the unfortunate distinction lies between what in theory CAN be helped and what CAN'T. And this makes the issue impossible to decide justly.
Moral issue? The morals of others does NOT affect what I can do legally. What matters is people's rights. As long as homosexuals wanting to get married are two consenting adults and not infringing upon the rights of others, there is no legal reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.


There are many theories of justice. Utilitarianism suggests that whatever produces the most happiess for society is just. The problem ther is that homosexuals are a minority group so this would suggest that homosexuality is not just. Natural Law, as advocated by Aquinas, would say that law derives from a divine power (ie God) and Christianity has seemed to ban homosexuality by traditional interpretations of religious texts. Positive law would say that any law made should be followed so long as the procedure is correct. The US politicians may have the wrong views or may not, but their objection to homosexual marriage is not unlawful in itself. The problem is that the Constitution was, as I understand it, not written to take into account homosexuality which was a much less known sexual preference at the time. So you see the problem! :(
There is no problem. This isn't about justice, it is about rights! The constitution was created to give people rights not justice. However, rather than basing laws on rights, the government wishes to ban homosexual marriage and limit their rights based on their own personal moral stances, which is just ridiculous.

Also, if you really think people didn't know about homosexuality 500 years ago, you need to look into history a bit more.

I personally do not oppose homosexuality. I do believe that an entirely homosexual society would not be healthy with only the utilisation of donors to maintain the human race. I think that would be bad, but I do believe that homosexuals if that is there choice should have a position in society. I believe that position is difficult to define.

Well there is practically no chance of the entire society becoming homosexual. If it was going to happen, it would have regardless of if gay marriage was legal or not. A homosexuals position in society is simple to define....the same as everyone else.

But if the majority of society had no problem with it, then according to the other poster, it would by the dictionarys definition be normal!!
I like how you poked fun at my Aussie lingo too, your so mature. :rolleyes: not.

Can you prove its a mental disorder?
I dont think it is.

I'm on your side cat-tribe in this one and think this guy here's views are all messed up. However, if you're gonna start taking shots at Aussie lingo I'll have to E-Punch you :)

But if the majority of society had no problem with it, then according to the other poster, it would by the dictionarys definition be normal!!

Sorry. As much as I'd like to, Neo-Anarchists do not share a brain, my friend.

And you keep playing bait and switch, buster.

If the majority of society were pedophiles, then pedophilia would be normal under the primary definition of the word. It would still be immoral. It could still be called abnormal under other definitions.

Can you prove its a mental disorder?
I dont think it is.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), published by the American Psychiatric Association, Washington D.C., 1994 -- Criteria for Pedophilia (http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355#DSMIV_Criteria_for_Pedophilia)

PsychNet-UK Pedophilia Information Sheet Description, Causation, Treatment, Associated Features, Differential Diagnosis etc. (http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/pedophilia.htm)

Pedophilia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12435259)
Implicit cognitive distortions and sexual offending. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15560415)

Most adults who sexually molest children are considered to have pedophilia, a mental disorder described in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior.

Happy, camper?

I'm on your side cat-tribe in this one and think this guy here's views are all messed up. However, if you're gonna start taking shots at Aussie lingo I'll have to E-Punch you :)

No worries.

I am not taking shots at Aussie lingo.

No worries.

I am not taking shots at Aussie lingo.

That's cool. I just wanted to use the E-Punch routine :D

Happy, skippy?

Thats flaming Cat tribe, I thought you were above that. werent you just on about me quasi griefing people on here? But here you are doing itfive minutes later.
Your abit of a hypocrite arent you, regarding this, nod your head.
I guess its one rule for me, and one rule for you, right?
We can settle this in moderation if you like?

Thats flaming Cat tribe, I thought you were above that. werent you just on about me quasi griefing people on here? But here you are doing itfive minutes later.
Your abit of a hypocrit arent you, nod your head.
I guess its one rule for me, and one rule for you, right?
:confused:
Is "Happy, skippy?" an insult?

:confused:
Is "Happy, skippy?" an insult?

'Skippy' is an insult, as Cat tribe is quite aware. Its a derogative term used towards white Australians by mostly middle easterners living here, it borders on outright racism. Like I said Cat tribe is quite aware of this, and should watch her/his step in future regarding this matter, that goes for anyone else here too. I dont have to put up with derogative comments regarding my nationality or race, as is made clear to Cat tribe if said person reads the rules a bit more carefully.

Thats flaming Cat tribe, I thought you were above that. werent you just on about me quasi griefing people on here? But here you are doing itfive minutes later.
Your abit of a hypocrite arent you, regarding this, nod your head.
I guess its one rule for me, and one rule for you, right?
We can settle this in moderation if you like?

Go for it, if you like.

It was not a flame. You use "mate" but objected to me using it. I sought a substitute.

I would note that you have developed a tendency to threaten people with a report to Moderation. That can be a punishable offense.

Ill also add, its quite incredible that someone such as Cat tribe who seems to pride him/herself on anti racism or having ago at people who make derogatory comments about someones nationality, religon etc would then attack me in this manner.

'Skippy' is an insult, as Cat tribe is quite aware. Its a derogative term used towards white Australians by mostly middle easterners living here, it borders on outright racism. Like I said Cat tribe is quite aware of this, and should watch her/his step in future regarding this matter, that goes for anyone else here too. I dont have to put up with derogative comments regarding my nationality or race, as is made clear to Cat tribe if said person reads the rules a bit more carefully.

If that is vaguely true -- and I love to see proof -- I apologize.

I was unaware of any such connotation re Australians.

A quick Google search reveals that one of the most popular prior children's shows in Australia was called "Skippy."

That is also the name of an exhibit in the Australian Museum.

A term used affectionately for Australia's Olympic swimmers.

According to the Australian National Dictionary Centre (http://www.anu.edu.au/andc/res/aewords/aewords_sz.php):

skip
An Australian of British descent. Also skippy. First recorded 1982. The term is the creation of non-British Australian migrants, especially children, who needed a term to counter the insulting terms directed at them by Australians of British descent. It derives from the television series ‘Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo’.

So, you are referring to a word of pride unique to Australia and of which I had no knowledge.

EDIT: Feel free to run a search of the forums. I have used the term many times, as have many others. I have never seen anyone object to it before as an ethnic slur.

Again, it was not intended as one. I apologize if you were offended.

'Skippy' is an insult, as Cat tribe is quite aware. Its a derogative term used towards white Australians by mostly middle easterners living here, it borders on outright racism. Like I said Cat tribe is quite aware of this, and should watch her/his step in future regarding this matter, that goes for anyone else here too. I dont have to put up with derogative comments regarding my nationality or race, as is made clear to Cat tribe if said person reads the rules a bit more carefully.

I'm Australian. Stop making me look stupid by association. Borders on outright racism, WTF? Skippy is NOTHING compared to what we white Australians often call other Aussie from different ethnic backgrounds and THEY don't make as big a deal out of it as you are over skippy. Also, skippy is not a purely Australian term and is used in different ways over in America.

Ofcourse, if Cat-tribe was using 'Skippy' as a reference to you being Australian then he can fuck right off, unless he is happy or us to call him a 'dumb yank' or 'redneck'.

Still, skippy is nothing.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]Go for it, if you like.

I will, you definitely need alesson to curb your arrogance, your not above moderation, and in this case you need it.

It was not a flame. You use "mate" but objected to me using it. I sought a substitute.

Because you used it in a derogative fashion and dont deny you did, because you highlighted it in Italics, your obviously having ago at my race and nationality, with both words, the former being used in the way it was. Do you think your above the law on here?
Heres an idea, stop having ago at my race and nationality, because its against the rules on here. Have I had ago at your race or nationality? No. Because unlike you, I try to follow the rules here.


I would note that you have developed a tendency to threaten people with a report to Moderation. That can be a punishable offense.

Only if its unwarrented. But you have made a personal attack here, and quite an obvious one, so I can take you there, and I can take you there each time you break the rules.

Why do you think your above moderation, no one is here, quite attacking me on here, and there will be no problems.

If that is vaguely true -- and I love to see proof -- I apologize.

I was unaware of any such connotation re Australians.

A quick Google search reveals that one of the most popular prior children's shows in Australia was called "Skippy."

That is also the name of an exhibit in the Australian Museum.

A term used affectionately for Australia's Olympic swimmers.

According to the Australian National Dictionary Centre (http://www.anu.edu.au/andc/res/aewords/aewords_sz.php):

skip
An Australian of British descent. Also skippy. First recorded 1982. The term is the creation of non-British Australian migrants, especially children, who needed a term to counter the insulting terms directed at them by Australians of British descent. It derives from the television series ‘Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo’.

So, you are referring to a word of pride unique to Australia and of which I had no knowledge.

EDIT: Feel free to run a search of the forums. I have used the term many times, as have many others. I have never seen anyone object to it before as an ethnic slur.

Again, it was not intended as one. I apologize if you were offended.

Well that clears everything up then. Lol, that's an old definition though, I haven't heard people call our swimmers 'Skippy' before. Instead we give them names like Thorpedo......what a sell-out.

[QUOTE=Bogstonia]I'm Australian. Stop making me look stupid by association.

Dont worry, you can probably do that all by yourself. ;)

Borders on outright racism, WTF? Skippy is NOTHING compared to what we white Australians often call other Aussie from different ethnic backgrounds and THEY don't make as big a deal out of it as you are over skippy. Also, skippy is not a purely Australian term and is used in different ways over in America.

Your right Skippy is mild, but its still derogatory, and Cat tribe despite the bullshit apology knew it, otherwise he/she wouldnt have said it.
Yeah I also know we give the middle easterners etc a hard time, with name calling etc but Im not a person who enjoys that, the only time I get pissed off at them is when their having ago at us, especially at Aussie women.
I also get pissed off at any one having ago at women of any nationality

Dont worry, you can probably do that all by yourself. ;)

Nice one. Jackass.


Your right Skippy is mild, but its still derogatory, and Cat tribe despite the bullshit apology knew it, otherwise he/she wouldnt have said it.
Yeah I also know we give the middle easterners etc a hard time, with name calling etc but Im not a person who enjoys that, the only time I get pissed off at them is when their having ago at us, especially at Aussie women.
I also get pissed off at any one having ago at women of any nationality
It is still derogatory yes. Cat-tribe probably shouldn't have been using it if he didn't actually know what it meant when talking to an Aussie. Though the mate thing is a write-off as you both used it.

As far as the skippy thing is concerned, my middle-eastern, asian, greek etc. mates will call me skippy or cracker and I wont mind. Same if I call them wog or something as I'm not doing it in a deragatory manner and they realise that, it's just a joke. I just generally assume that all Aussie's are laid back like that which I guess isn't true.

You're still wrong about the gay rights though :P

Your right Skippy is mild, but its still derogatory, and Cat tribe despite the bullshit apology knew it, otherwise he/she wouldnt have said it.


Actually skippy is a generic term used in the states quite frequently. Such as when you are making a point to someone and want to add emphasis, you say "Damned skippy" at the end of it. In addition, its also a name of a brand of peanut butter. Over here, its not derogatory at all. Also, I highly doubt you can read Cat's mind to know what he was intending when he said it.

But I imagine you probably won't believe that, because you'd rather pretend that The Cat-Tribe is insulting you instead of having to actually deal with his point.

Well that clears everything up then. Lol, that's an old definition though, I haven't heard people call our swimmers 'Skippy' before. Instead we give them names like Thorpedo......what a sell-out.

If you say it is an ethinc slur, then I believe you.

I couldn't find anything to that effect online, but that does not mean it isn't true.

What I found re "skippy" and Australians were things like this (in addition to references to the children's show):
http://www.swimming.org.au/meets_and_results/news_item.cfm?ObjectID=1234&NewsID=14111 (the Olympic swimmer reference by the Australian Swimming website)
http://www.amonline.net.au/archive.cfm?id=951
http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/seismology/Expt/skippy97/skippy.new.html
http://www.afc.gov.au/filmsandawards/filmdbsearch.aspx?view=title&title=SKIPPY&area=title&type=TV+Drama&genre=Animation

I did just find this discussion (http://www.aussieinamerica.com/language/names.htm) of the term. I makes it rather clear that (a) the term has an entirely different meaning here and (b) Americans aren't aware of this internal usage.

To me, Skippy was simply a silly name. Here are definitions/usages of the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skippy
http://www.skippy.com/
http://encyclopedia.localcolorart.com/encyclopedia/Skippy_Squirrel/
http://search.localcolorart.com/search/encyclopedia/Family_Ties/
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Prince_(artist)

Again, I apologize that a phrase I use in other contexts and had no idea was offensive to anyone has caused offense. I did not mean to cause offense and did not use it as a ethnic slur.

I will keep this in mind in the future.

Cool. Well that is pretty much settled, so back to the topic.

Another gay rights issue, should they have equal adoption rights?

Also, if you have three couples wishing to adopt, similar income, life styles [not sexual, where they live, what hours they work, religious stances...] etc. Only obvious difference is that one couple is straight, one couple is two gay men and the other couple is a lesbian couple. Who gets the preference and why? [Assuming gay marriage is legal and all three couples are married would be best for this scenario]

Well discuss, I have to do some work and go see a client for a little bit. Back later!

Cool. Well that is pretty much settled, so back to the topic.

Another gay rights issue, should they have equal adoption rights?

Also, if you have three couples wishing to adopt, similar income, life styles [not sexual, where they live, what hours they work, religious stances...] etc. Only obvious difference is that one couple is straight, one couple is two gay men and the other couple is a lesbian couple. Who gets the preference and why? [Assuming gay marriage is legal and all three couples are married would be best for this scenario]

Well discuss, I have to do some work and go see a client for a little bit. Back later!

If they are all the same other than sexual orientation in the couples. then none would get preference. At most, I would say that a young girl may be better with the heterosexual parents or the lesbians for those awkward times when she gets her first period and such. Of course, even then, if two gay men had fostered trust in her and been open with her (and aren't afraid to by her tampons), they would probably be fine. Luckily, there are many, many, many children who need parents, so they could all get a child.

Gay marriage should be illegal.
Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt.
What you do behind closed doors is your business, but thats where it stays. We shouldnt be changing laws everytime someone decides to try something new or different.

I hate the term "human rights". Your only "RIGHT" as a human is life. And even that is not a right, its a privaledge and a gift. But beside that, nothing is a RIGHT. Using that term means that the rest of the country/world absolutely HAS to give you something and its flat out wrong if they dont.
Thats rediculous. No one has the RIGHT to get married unless you meet the terms and qualifications of it. Just like no one has the RIGHT to drive unless you qualify for a license. The government can grant you rights but they always have stipulations and requirements. Just because you want or feel like doing something doesnt mean you automatically have the right to do so.

As far as gay rights, they have the same rights as any other individual has as a human being based on the laws of their country. But we shouldnt be changing all the rules to suit people. Its like reverse sexual discrimination. Instead of denying someone something based on sexual orientation, you're now making special exceptions and giving them things because of it.

The Redeemer']Gay marriage should be illegal.

Only if all marriage is illegal.

The Redeemer']Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt.

Only if no one is allowed to adopt.

The Redeemer']What you do behind closed doors is your business, but thats where it stays.

Then why are you trying to deny people equal protection based upon it? It is you who has decided to drag these things out from behind closed doors and make it a problem.

The Redeemer'] We shouldnt be changing laws everytime someone decides to try something new or different.

There is no need to change laws, so long as they are equally applied to everyone. At the moment, they are not.

The Redeemer']I hate the term "human rights". Your only "RIGHT" as a human is life. And even that is not a right, its a privaledge and a gift. But beside that, nothing is a RIGHT. Using that term means that the rest of the country/world absolutely HAS to give you something and its flat out wrong if they dont.

So you would be perfectly fine with it if I murdered your mother? Right now? After all, you have no reason to expect that I give her the right to live.

The Redeemer']Thats rediculous. No one has the RIGHT to get married unless you meet the terms and qualifications of it. Just like no one has the RIGHT to drive unless you qualify for a license.

Guess what, we can't deny a driver's license to someone because they happen to be homosexual.

The Redeemer']The government can grant you rights but they always have stipulations and requirements. Just because you want or feel like doing something doesnt mean you automatically have the right to do so.

In the US, the government can only grant rights that it grants equally to all citizens, with no regard to race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

The Redeemer']As far as gay rights, they have the same rights as any other individual has as a human being based on the laws of their country.

Incorrect. I suggest you actually look into the laws of most countries.

Your right Skippy is mild, but its still derogatory, and Cat tribe despite the bullshit apology knew it, otherwise he/she wouldnt have said it.
Yeah I also know we give the middle easterners etc a hard time, with name calling etc but Im not a person who enjoys that, the only time I get pissed off at them is when their having ago at us, especially at Aussie women.
I also get pissed off at any one having ago at women of any nationality

Curious.

When I looked up the scores of times people have referred to other posters as "skippy" (without objection I could find), I found that -- in addition to the dozens of times I have referred to others by that nickname -- I referred to you before by that name -- including in this thread!!!

My apology for causing inadvertent offense is sincere. As is my apology for inadvertently using an ethnic slur. I will not use it in the future.

But I truly think you are crying wolf. And your griefing directed at me and others in other threads because we disagreed with you in yet another thread last night bears this out.

Only if all marriage is illegal.

*snip*

Incorrect. I suggest you actually look into the laws of most countries.

Well done.

But you left no scaps for the rest of us. ;)

Well done.

But you left no scaps for the rest of us. ;)

I for one appreciate that. You and Dem being so efficient saves me twice the timef time to express myself half as well.

So for gay adoption, agian I ask:
Why am I alowed to have children but not adopt one?
Why are men allowed to have children through a surragate mother, but not adopt one.
Hell, why are poor, single, drug abusing, child abusing, brain dead wastes of human skin allowed to have children, but not adopt one?
Society will take your child away from you (eventually) if you cause it harm- Even then you may get it back as recent news events of dead children show-but adoption laws are so strict many couples adopt out of country. Curious as to why people think that may be.

(I personally spent my junior year in high school saying 'damn skippy' when wanting to express an emphatic yes. This has little or no relevence, but it did bring back warm tingly thoughts of high school nostalgia and made me wonder about the origin of the word 'skippy' in the US....hint hint to those of you with lots of time on your hands and a finger on google)

And one other thing, if an argument could best be summed up by two 7 year olds shouting 'nu-uh'..and ..'nu-hu' at eachother and ending it with 'my dad could beat up your dad'....could we please skip those arguments. They are taking up lots of space on an already long (admititly fun) thread.

and my dad can't beat up anyones dad. he's pretty wimpy. :)

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]Curious.
When I looked up the scores of times people have referred to other posters as "skippy" (without objection I could find), I found that -- in addition to the dozens of times I have referred to others by that nickname --

I find that abit hard to believe, can you back that up with actual proof?

Do you think I should start referring to black people on here as 'boy' ??



I referred to you before by that name -- including in this thread!!!

and the last time you called me that, I let it go, as it was late. and couldnt be bothered getting into an arguement, I was hoping you would just drop it, but you didnt.

My apology for causing inadvertent offense is sincere. As is my apology for inadvertently using an ethnic slur. I will not use it in the future.

I accept the apology, I dont believe however you meant no offence by it, but if your willing to drop it in future, and let bygones be bygones then I will be happy too.


But I truly think you are crying wolf. And your griefing directed at me and others in other threads because we disagreed with you in yet another thread last night bears this out.

What griefing?
And I dont care if you and your pals and me disagree on everything under the sun. It would be a small world if everyone thought the same way you did, I have no problem with people having a polar position to mine, so why should you?

[QUOTE=Bogstonia]Nice one. Jackass.

Now now, if you cant take a bit of sledging, then dont dish it out. :) ;)



It is still derogatory yes. Cat-tribe probably shouldn't have been using it if he didn't actually know what it meant when talking to an Aussie. Though the mate thing is a write-off as you both used it.

She put it in italics,therefore highlighting it as a slur on my lingo, your right it is a minor thing, but nevertheless aslur.

As far as the skippy thing is concerned, my middle-eastern, asian, greek etc. mates will call me skippy or cracker and I wont mind. Same if I call them wog or something as I'm not doing it in a deragatory manner and they realise that, it's just a joke. I just generally assume that all Aussie's are laid back like that which I guess isn't true.

Yeah, but thats your mates, I do that too, because we know its just a joke, but you wouldnt go up and start that with a total stranger, because you would just be asking for trouble.

You're still wrong about the gay rights though :P

And I can say you are etc etc :headbang: so why bother.

I'll respond to this one last time.


I find that abit hard to believe, can you back that up with actual proof?

Fine.

Some of the uses by me:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798214&postcount=517
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8774330&postcount=118
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8682733&postcount=54
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798137&postcount=56


Some of the uses by others:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8585804&postcount=279
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8488601&postcount=12
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7836831&postcount=168
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784984&postcount=196
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7933527&postcount=104
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7627460&postcount=28
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8552724&postcount=832
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8532355&postcount=222\

Can I get my apology now for the unfounded accusation?

Do you think I should start referring to black people on here as 'boy' ??

Not funny. Not a good point. Don't go there.


FYI, contrary to your assumptions, I'm white and male.

[QUOTE]

I find that abit hard to believe, can you back that up with actual proof?

Do you think I should start referring to black people on here as 'boy' ??




and the last time you called me that, I let it go, as it was late. and couldnt be bothered getting into an arguement, I was hoping you would just drop it, but you didnt.



I accept the apology, I dont believe however you meant no offence by it, but if your willing to drop it in future, and let bygones be bygones then I will be happy too.




What griefing?
And I dont care if you and your pals and me disagree on everything under the sun. It would be a small world if everyone thought the same way you did, I have no problem with people having a polar position to mine, so why should you?

Griefing (as applies to this forum) generally means following someone around from thread to thread to just argue with them. (sometimes with something said in another thread)
The technical definition is in the rules and regs for the forum

And that is the sound of a Mutated Sea Bass being throughly served. By the way, I hope nobody is using the word hullaballoo, because I find it offensive. It is a derogatory term towards people from Hull, Quebec. If they say it on TV here they have to bleep it out, but I'm allowed to say it because I'm a Hullaballoonian.

And that is the sound of a Mutated Sea Bass being throughly served. By the way, I hope nobody is using the word hullaballoo, because I find it offensive. It is a derogatory term towards people from Hull, Quebec. If they say it on TV here they have to bleep it out, but I'm allowed to say it because I'm a Hullaballoonian.

Important information. :rolleyes:

Gay people, straight people..it doesnt really make much of a difference..gay people are just the same as straight people. It's just that they have different view and interests, just like how some people may collect coins, while others collect stamps...it deosnt matter, truth still stands as that they are people who deserve the same rights as straight people.

I'll respond to this one last time.



Fine.

Some of the uses by me:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798214&postcount=517
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8774330&postcount=118
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8682733&postcount=54
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798137&postcount=56


Some of the uses by others:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8585804&postcount=279
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8488601&postcount=12
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7836831&postcount=168
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784984&postcount=196
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7933527&postcount=104
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7627460&postcount=28
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8552724&postcount=832
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8532355&postcount=222\

Can I get my apology now for the unfounded accusation?



Not funny. Not a good point. Don't go there.


FYI, contrary to your assumptions, I'm white and male.

Just wanted to leap in on here, since I am one of those people who has used the term "skippy"...

First - MSB might like to take note that most of the people using the term "skippy" use lower case... thus illustrating that this is not a name, as such.

Second - I, personally, was not acquainted with any peculiarities of the language that make 'skippy' an especially insulting term anywhere in the world... and...

Third - we cannot seriously modify our language to cover ALL possible interpretations of insult... all possible meanings of every word.

Fourth - I have encountered 'skippy' in both the UK and the US... and in both cases - it is used as a term of slight derogatory nature... meaning someone who is impulsive... too quick off the mark... impetuous.

Fifth - the etymology of 'skippy', as I use it, is from Construction slang... picked up on building sites in my youth. In THAT context "skippy" meant a rushed paint job.. one that left 'skipped' areas.... fitting in with the "too quick off the mark" definition.

Sixth - I believe that the invading forces of The Cat-Tribe have just withdrawn from the beaches of the Mutated Sea Bass... leaving, in their wake, a small colourful flag, bearing the letters "P.W.N.E.D"...

Sixth - I believe that the invading forces of The Cat-Tribe have just withdrawn from the beaches of the Mutated Sea Bass... leaving, in their wake, a small colourful flag, bearing the letters "P.W.N.E.D"...

When y'all get the chance, would you explain to me exactly what pwned means?

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]I'll respond to this one last time.
Fine.
Some of the uses by me:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798214&postcount=517
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8774330&postcount=118
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8682733&postcount=54
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798137&postcount=56

Thanks, you have backed my case up completely with your own usage of the word, you were arguing in an inflamatory way with everyone of these Australian posters, and you tacked the slur skippy on to deliberately rile them.
You were not engaged in any friendly banter with any of these posters when using the word, so while I hate to say it does look like you have been insulting other Aussies on here as well as me, so Ill apologise for not knowing that. :)

Some of the uses by others:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8585804&postcount=279
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8488601&postcount=12
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7836831&postcount=168
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784984&postcount=196
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7933527&postcount=104
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7627460&postcount=28
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8552724&postcount=832
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8532355&postcount=222\

All of them were inflamatory posts as well!! :rolleyes: with the exception of one they were all used in a condescending manner!
Tell me Cat tribe, would you like me to tack on Seppo, not that I would( Septic tank= Yank) in referring to you and other American posters on here in future.
For some strange reason, I dont think you and others would be too happy about that.


Can I get my apology now for the unfounded accusation?

Only in that I'll admit you have gone out of your way to be rude to other Aussie posters here that you have disagreed with, I apologise for not knowing.

EDIT: Ive just re read some of these posts you put up, and for you to accuse me of being rude and deliberately flaming etc is beyond belief! You would have to be one of the most inflammatory posters Ive seen on here.
Pot calling Kettle Black to the infinity. LMFAO!

Not funny. Not a good point. Don't go there.

Why? Insulting black people with nicknames is off limits, but you seem to be saying its fine to insult white posters in this way, why do have such a double standard on this?


FYI, contrary to your assumptions, I'm white and male.

That doesnt mean you can insult someone like this just because your white.

Just wanted to leap in on here, since I am one of those people who has used the term "skippy"...

First - MSB might like to take note that most of the people using the term "skippy" use lower case... thus illustrating that this is not a name, as such.

Second - I, personally, was not acquainted with any peculiarities of the language that make 'skippy' an especially insulting term anywhere in the world... and...

Third - we cannot seriously modify our language to cover ALL possible interpretations of insult... all possible meanings of every word.

Fourth - I have encountered 'skippy' in both the UK and the US... and in both cases - it is used as a term of slight derogatory nature... meaning someone who is impulsive... too quick off the mark... impetuous.

Fifth - the etymology of 'skippy', as I use it, is from Construction slang... picked up on building sites in my youth. In THAT context "skippy" meant a rushed paint job.. one that left 'skipped' areas.... fitting in with the "too quick off the mark" definition.

Sixth - I believe that the invading forces of The Cat-Tribe have just withdrawn from the beaches of the Mutated Sea Bass... leaving, in their wake, a small colourful flag, bearing the letters "P.W.N.E.D"...

Throes are the definition I myself am familiar with

All and all a rather over the top response to what was almost surely a mistake insult

All of them were inflamatory posts as well, :rolleyes: with the exception of one they were all used in a condescending manner!
Tell me Cat tribe, would you like me to tack on Seppo( Septic tank= Yank) in referring to you and other American posters on here in future.
For some strange reason, I dont think you and others would be too happy about that.
.

OMG! Is that real? Do Australians really use that term to refer to us? That's absolutely DELIGHTFUL! I mean, there are so many other slurs one could choose, but this one is great! I'm going to start calling everyone this. Plus, it sounds like a long lost Marx brother (no, not THAT Marx, the funny ones...well, okay, the ones who were both funny and in vaudeville).

When y'all get the chance, would you explain to me exactly what pwned means?

Owned.. as in "I Owned you". Game terminology for a kill, for example... from that hazy area of computer geekiness that brings us L337-speak, etc...

Thanks, you have backed my case up completely with your own usage of the word, you were arguing in an inflamatory way with everyone of these Australian posters, and you tacked the slur skippy on to deliberately rile them.
You were not engaged in any friendly banter with any of these posters when using the word, so while I hate to say it does look like you have been insulting other Aussies on here as well as me, so Ill apologise for not knowing that. :)


Ummm, how do you know they are all Aussies?

Owned.. as in "I Owned you". Game terminology for a kill, for example... from that hazy area of computer geekiness that brings us L337-speak, etc...

That's kind of what I figured. . . just wasn't sure where the p came from. I've seen 1337 before, but not in that manner. Thanks for the clarification.

/TANGENT

Owned.. as in "I Owned you". Game terminology for a kill, for example... from that hazy area of computer geekiness that brings us L337-speak, etc...
It originated with a misspelling of owned by a map creator in starcraft

Before that owned was used frequently after that pwned took over (see what the power of one misspelling has)

OMG! Is that real? Do Australians really use that term to refer to us? That's absolutely DELIGHTFUL! I mean, there are so many other slurs one could choose, but this one is great! I'm going to start calling everyone this. Plus, it sounds like a long lost Marx brother (no, not THAT Marx, the funny ones...well, okay, the ones who were both funny and in vaudeville).

Its an old one from WW2 days, its rarely heard now.
To be honest I dont think we have one for you guys anymore, thats derogatory, except for yank, and thats pretty much identification in the same mould as Aussie.

Gays are the imoral fabric of society. and surley will lead us to the fall of society, Your not born GAY, its not something you catch, it's a moral CHOICE!
and what really bites my Ass is all the media they get when they are less than 5% of the population, thats because Gays run Hollywood Do I hate gays? NO do I have Homophobia? NO Do I want Gay friends? NO Just like I do not want Criminals for fiends or liars or cheats for friends. My grandma use to say If you sleep with dogs you will get fleas. You are who you hang with and I want friends That have the same moral standards as me, I do not want child molesters, cheating husbands or wives for friends. it;s that simple Just my opinion :} Have a Nice Day

What I really cant stand is haveing gay crap thrown down my throat everytime I turn on the TV, I think thats where my hostility comes from Go back in the Closet!!!!!!!!!!

Why could'nt Hollywood been run by starving pigmies down in new guinne

See the post above for another shining example of the intellectual forces fighting against gay equality. :rolleyes:

Its an old one from WW2 days, its rarely heard now.
To be honest I dont think we have one for you guys anymore, thats derogatory, except for yank, and thats pretty much identification in the same mould as Aussie.
Would explain why it is the first I have heard of it :-P lol (the age of it that is)

Learn something new every day

Have to remember to stay away from skippie too (though around here that is not as common as something like "buccko")

Though seem to have an awfull lot of small dogs named skippy around here (there is a penutbutter company as well I think)

Grave_n_idle[/B]]

[QUOTE]Second - I, personally, was not acquainted with any peculiarities of the language that make 'skippy' an especially insulting term anywhere in the world... and...

In Sydney its used by middle easterners usually to describe Aussies in a derogatory way, usually tacked on to such delightful words as 'slut' '****' 'stupid' 'dumb' 'piece if shit' etc. Of course its also used between mates of different ethnic backgrounds and Aussies, because their mates, so they dont take it seriously.

But on the whole its used in a derogatory way here, and here as well it seems.


Third - we cannot seriously modify our language to cover ALL possible interpretations of insult... all possible meanings of every word.

So your saying you refer to other nationalitys on here as skippy as well? :rolleyes:


Fourth - I have encountered 'skippy' in both the UK and the US... and in both cases - it is used as a term of slight derogatory nature... meaning someone who is impulsive... too quick off the mark... impetuous.

Well thats totally different, but it isnt really relevant in this case.


Sixth - I believe that the invading forces of The Cat-Tribe have just withdrawn from the beaches of the Mutated Sea Bass... leaving, in their wake, a small colourful flag, bearing the letters "P.W.N.E.D"...

Arent we the witty one, and that means what exactly?

The only right I know of that gays have yet to acquire in the US is the right to serve in the military. They should be given this right. Other than that, they already have all of the rights everyone else has, the only thing left to do is to penalise those people who discriminate against them.

The reasoning the Military has for "discriminating" against homosexuals does make sense. For starters, it makes fellow Military personnel uncomfortable in, say, shower situations, to know that the person standing next to them may be sexually aroused by them. Also, it makes it a lot easier to engage in sexual activities if there is a large group of the same sex, of which several members are openly homosexual. What if those homosexual members have intercourse? Males and females are separated for essentially these reasons, so it makes sense. And it would be absurd for the Military to provide "separate by equal" facilities for the homosexuals; especially since the homosexuals could easily engage in intercourse in such facilities. It's a complicated issue.

Anyway, about your idea of punishing those who discriminate... Don't have the right to practice what they believe, as long as they don't harm someone? If I open a restaurant and I, say, don't want Indians coming in, then I should have that right not to let Indians come in. Should I be punished for that? Heck no. It's MY restaurant, I own it, and I should be able to say who comes into MY property.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]



In Sydney its used by middle easterners usually to describe Aussies in a derogatory way, usually tacked on to such delightfull words as 'slut' '****' 'stupid' 'dumb' 'piece if shit' etc of course its also used between mates of different ethnic backgrounds and Aussies, because their mates, so they dont take it seriously.
But on the whole its used in a derogatory way here, and here as well it seems.




So your saying you refer to other nationalitys on here as skippy as well? :rolleyes:




Well thats totally different, but it isnt really relevant in this case.




Ohh arent we the witty one, and that means what exactly?


Over here it is not nationalities rather people exhibiting the behaviors he listed generally are a "skippie" over here it has a completely different connotation.

Its not an ethnic slur here but rather a personal nickname sort of

Would explain why it is the first I have heard of it :-P lol (the age of it that is)
Learn something new every day
Have to remember to stay away from skippie too (though around here that is not as common as something like "buccko")
Though seem to have an awfull lot of small dogs named skippy around here (there is a penutbutter company as well I think)

Skippy peanut butter, yeah its nice, or was I havent seen it for a while.

[QUOTE=Mutated Sea Bass]
Over here it is not nationalities rather people exhibiting the behaviors he listed generally are a "skippie" over here it has a completely different connotation.
Its not an ethnic slur here but rather a personal nickname sort of

Oh right.

Skippy peanut butter, yeah its nice, or was I havent seen it for a while.

Perhaps they stopped selling it there because people imagined the company was trying to insult their racial/ethnic heritage.

Perhaps they stopped selling it there because people imagined the company was trying to insult them.
Lol naw they probably dont care (I think I see it on the shelf every once and a while )

Lol naw they probably dont care (I think I see it on the shelf every once and a while )

I was being facetious. It's certainly still sold here. Have a jar in my pantry as a matter of fact ;)

See the post above for another shining example of the intellectual forces fighting against gay equality. :rolleyes:

Intellectuals got nothing to do with it, you can like gays, hate them or not care, but your IQ has nothing to do with it.

I was being facetious. It's certainly still sold here. Have a jar in my pantry as a matter of fact ;)
I think I have jif right now (I know you were ... I was tryin to be same but failed at it lol)

Intellectuals got nothing to do with it, you can like gays, hate them or not care, but your IQ has nothing to do with it.

<taps the microphone on the soapbox> Is this thing on or I am, yet again, not communicating well due to late night and no sleep?

Perhaps they stopped selling it there because people imagined the company was trying to insult their racial/ethnic heritage.

No I think it was the company being taken over by Sanatarium(sp) nice try but.

<taps the microphone on the soapbox> Is this thing on or I am, yet again, not communicating well due to late night and no sleep?
Oh oh.

[QUOTE=Mutated Sea Bass]
Over here it is not nationalities rather people exhibiting the behaviors he listed generally are a "skippie" over here it has a completely different connotation.
Its not an ethnic slur here but rather a personal nickname sort of

Fair point.
But if anyone called me Skippy because of my nationality, Id take it up with them, it sucks.

Gays are the imoral fabric of society. and surley will lead us to the fall of society, Your not born GAY, its not something you catch, it's a moral CHOICE!

At what point were you equally attracted to both males and females and chose one over the other? Obviously, this will only be useful if, from that point onward, you were never again attracted to the unchosen gender.

At what point were you equally attracted to both males and females and chose one over the other? Obviously, this will only be useful if, from that point onward, you were never again attracted to the unchosen gender.


Actually that guy is right, because if you think about it... if your born gay, that means everytime a baby craps it's diaper, it's having an orgasam of sexual pleasure (which is accounted for by freud, who was a dumbass and I can prove it... just not this late at night). When people say it's a choice, it's more of a subconcious choice, rather then a: I decide to be gay!

All in all? Another stupid, heated argument, because no one has all the facts. (I don't, but just this thread alone has enough to merit that the flaming has got to stop)

Now onto the subject. Gay rights, or whatever the hell they SHOULD be called, or WILL be called... yea they have a preference. So a guy likes a guy. Does that mean we should start treating them like the blacks in the south before the civil war? No... thus they have rights. As far as I can see, they're just trying to butt into some of the other rights, just to stirr things up. Remember, there where gays and such in the 60's, and no one could tell the diffrence because EVERYONE was fricken like that. So again, like I said: They have it, stop asking for more, and deal with it. But that's my opinion.

Actually that guy is right, because if you think about it... if your born gay, that means everytime a baby craps it's diaper, it's having an orgasam of sexual pleasure (which is accounted for by freud, who was a dumbass and I can prove it... just not this late at night). When people say it's a choice, it's more of a subconcious choice, rather then a: I decide to be gay!

All in all? Another stupid, heated argument, because no one has all the facts. (I don't, but just this thread alone has enough to merit that the flaming has got to stop)

Now onto the subject. Gay rights, or whatever the hell they SHOULD be called, or WILL be called... yea they have a preference. So a guy likes a guy. Does that mean we should start treating them like the blacks in the south before the civil war? No... thus they have rights. As far as I can see, they're just trying to butt into some of the other rights, just to stirr things up. Remember, there where gays and such in the 60's, and no one could tell the diffrence because EVERYONE was fricken like that. So again, like I said: They have it, stop asking for more, and deal with it. But that's my opinion.

So those darned homos should just sit back and be happy to be treated as second class citizens is basically your point.

I've been catching up on this thread by reading the last dozen pages. I must say, The Mutated One is pretty whiny about certain things. I'm American and consider myself somewhat more aware than the average American (for whatever that's worth) about our neighbors. I have never heard that "skippy" was a racial or ethnic slur. And I've never seen anyone so paranoid about shit as to continue whining about it for several pages after a seemingly sincere apology. Just me, but when someone offers me a reasonable apology, I take it.

Back to the subject of the thread. Though I've read it in a couple of books, this is the only place I could find it on short notice.
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

Apparently the Christian church didn't always (and some portions still don't) have it's panties in such a wad about gay marraige.

A few excerpts, since about half of us are to lazy to go read the whole thing.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Actually that guy is right, because if you think about it... if your born gay, that means everytime a baby craps it's diaper, it's having an orgasam of sexual pleasure (which is accounted for by freud, who was a dumbass and I can prove it... just not this late at night). When people say it's a choice, it's more of a subconcious choice, rather then a: I decide to be gay!

Er, so every time a woman does number one she's having an orgasm? Or every time a man drains the lizard, for that matter? That's a fairly specious argument.



All in all? Another stupid, heated argument, because no one has all the facts. (I don't, but just this thread alone has enough to merit that the flaming has got to stop)

Now onto the subject. Gay rights, or whatever the hell they SHOULD be called, or WILL be called... yea they have a preference. So a guy likes a guy. Does that mean we should start treating them like the blacks in the south before the civil war? No... thus they have rights. As far as I can see, they're just trying to butt into some of the other rights, just to stirr things up.

The right to not be fired from their place of employment because of who they are? The right to adopt children when study after study has shown that there is absolutely no reason to believe a child raised in a same-sex parent household has any greater chance of being gay or exhibiting any more psychological disorders than a child raised in a mixed-sex household? What rights are you objecting to their "butting in on just to stir things up?"


Remember, there where gays and such in the 60's, and no one could tell the diffrence because EVERYONE was fricken like that. So again, like I said: They have it, stop asking for more, and deal with it. But that's my opinion.

Everyone was gay in the 60s? Golly.

[QUOTE=Bitchkitten]I've been catching up on this thread by reading the last dozen pages. I must say, The Mutated One is pretty whiny about certain things.

Knock off the insults, thats your last warning.

[QUOTE]I'm American and consider myself somewhat more aware than the average American (for whatever that's worth) about our neighbors. I have never heard that "skippy" was a racial or ethnic slur.

Well now your aware.

And I've never seen anyone so paranoid about shit as to continue whining about it for several pages after a seemingly sincere apology. Just me, but when someone offers me a reasonable apology, I take it.

I was replying to quite a few posts about the subject, afterwards, and I dont think I was whining either. Also a wise word of advice, you might want to stop the juvenile flaming also, its against the forum rules you read.


Apparently the Christian church didn't always (and some portions still don't) have it's panties in such a wad about gay marraige.

The Catholic Church has always been against gay marriage, as have other Christian churches. A Few homosexual renegades through history, make little difference to the Churches stance on it.
As far as the modern Christian Chruches accepting gay marriage and clergy etc, I dont recognise them anymore.

As far as the modern Christian Chruches accepting gay marriage and clergy etc, I dont recognise them anymore.

Who are you? The Catholic church?

...must have an aluminum pope hat too. :)

Thanks, you have backed my case up completely with your own usage of the word, you were arguing in an inflamatory way with everyone of these Australian posters, and you tacked the slur skippy on to deliberately rile them.
You were not engaged in any friendly banter with any of these posters when using the word, so while I hate to say it does look like you have been insulting other Aussies on here as well as me, so Ill apologise for not knowing that. :)

Nice try.

... except none of the posters I was responding to are "Aussies" -- (btw, the only thing I could find on the internet complaining about "skippy" also complained that "Aussie" was a similar slur.)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798214&postcount=517
That "skippy" was aimed at Ilkland.
Ilkland is an American who lives in the Pacific Northwest.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8817587&postcount=29

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8774330&postcount=118
The target was Doom777
Doom777 is also an American.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8773708&postcount=1

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8682733&postcount=54
directed at The Isle of Skye, who is also American
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8139632&postcount=140

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798137&postcount=56
directed at The Underemployed Pirates -- another American
(He deleted most of his posts in that thread -- where, for example, he stated he fought in Vietnam and lived in Tom DeLay's congressional district). still, he is an American ...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8780350&postcount=11
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8765581&postcount=46

So, you simply lied.

(And, I don't think the instances I listed of other posters using "skippy" involved Australians either. I know many of the absolutely did not.)

Only in that I'll admit you have gone out of your way to be rude to other Aussie posters here that you have disagreed with, I apologise for not knowing.*snip*

I does not appear that a single one of the other posters I have ever referred to as "skippy" is Australian.

Nor have I found that anyone has ever complained before that this is an ethnic slur.

You said you were going to report me to the Moderators. I will give this a night's rest first, but I think I will be reporting your griefing to the Mods.

[QUOTE]

Knock off the insults, thats your last warning.




LOL
Does that mean you'll never warn me about anything again? *whew* What a relief.
I don't believe saying someone is whiny is actually against the rules, but I'll try to play nice now.

Who are you? The Catholic church?
...must have an aluminum pope hat too. :)

Yes, Im part of it, so Im it, in a sense.
The only thing that would part me from it, would be if it conceeded to the lowering moral standards of the West, as some other Churches have, from fear of pc.
And quit the dumb flaming will you?

[QUOTE=Mutated Sea Bass]
LOL
Does that mean you'll never warn me about anything again? *whew* What a relief.
I don't believe saying someone is whiny is actually against the rules, but I'll try to play nice now.

OK, you do that. :rolleyes:

Yes, Im part of it, so Im it, in a sense.
The only thing that would part me from it, would be if it conceeded to the lowering moral standards of the West, as some other Churches have, from fear of pc.
And quit the dumb flaming will you?

Yes we're well aware of the good old fashioned high and mighty moral standards of the Catholic church.

[QUOTE=Bitchkitten]

OK, you do that. :rolleyes:I said I'd try. My success in this endeavor may depend somewhat on the behavior of those around me. :p

i dont have any problems with homosexuals but marriage is a little too much

i dont have any problems with homosexuals but marriage is a little too much

so you DO have a problem with homosexuals

so you DO have a problem with homosexuals
no, I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

Nice try.

[QUOTE]... except none of the posters I was responding to are "Aussies" -- (btw, the only thing I could find on the internet complaining about "skippy" also complained that "Aussie" was a similar slur.)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798214&postcount=517
That "skippy" was aimed at Ilkland.
Ilkland is an American who lives in the Pacific Northwest.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8817587&postcount=29

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8774330&postcount=118
The target was Doom777
Doom777 is also an American.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8773708&postcount=1

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8682733&postcount=54
directed at The Isle of Skye, who is also American
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8139632&postcount=140

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8798137&postcount=56
directed at The Underemployed Pirates -- another American
(He deleted most of his posts in that thread -- where, for example, he stated he fought in Vietnam and lived in Tom DeLay's congressional district). still, he is an American ...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8780350&postcount=11
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8765581&postcount=46

lmao I thought this was dead.
Well you called them skippy for some reason Cat tribe, maybe you hold us Aussies in such contempt, that skippy is a favourite insult for you to give to anyone now?
I also note, you were being very antagonistic to all these posters as well, and you even addressed one of them in the quote address as 'the target' ...
that says it all doesnt it. your own choice of words give you away as a flamer.

You said you were going to report me to the Moderators. I will give this a night's rest first, but I think I will be reporting your griefing to the Mods.

You go for it, Im sure they will see my side of it too in this little battle.
As for accusing me of griefing, flaming people etc you have shown yourself to be in your very own posts, as nothing else. :rolleyes:

no, I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

why?

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]Nice try.



lmao I thought this was dead, before you speak up, BK he bought this back up back.
So maybe you would like to say possibly that Cat tribe is whining too?
Didnt think so...

Well you called them skippy for some reason Cat tribe, maybe you hold us Aussies in such contempt, that skippy is a favourite insult for you to give to anyone?
I also note, you were being very antagonistic to all these posters, and you even addressed one of them in the quote address as 'the target' ...
that says it all doesnt it. your own choice of words give you away.



You go for it, Im sure they will see my side of it too.
As for accusing me of griefing, flaming people etc you have shown yourself to be in your very own posts, as nothing else.


yes, cat-tribe is whining. So are you. Take this BS out of this thread, it's way off topic.

Gay rights are to the twenty first century what racial equality was to the twentyith. In the sixties and seventies racism was an acceptable orm of hatred, most whites were not willing to grant others full citozenship. We have the same situation now regarding homosexuals. Hopefully our supreme court and polititions will act with courage and integrity and move to end this last acceptable bigotry.

[QUOTE=Mutated Sea Bass]


yes, cat-tribe is whining. So are you. Take this BS out of this thread, it's way off topic.

Point taken. Although there is more to the story.

I had intended for it to die here. Other than in my poll, I will not discuss it further except in Moderation.

As you know, I was on-topic in this thread from the beginning. I apologize for joining MSB for leading the thread astray -- again.

[QUOTE=Mutated Sea Bass]
yes, cat-tribe is whining. So are you. Take this BS out of this thread, it's way off topic.

Im just trying to follow the rules, my original request was a simple one, not to insult or flame me, is that so unreasonable?
This would have all been over if the person had just agreed not to. Others jumping in like the small minded little bullys that they are, havent helped either, if you want this to get back on track as I do, then contribute something further to the topic.

no, I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

Which is discrimination either on the basis of gender or sexual orientation or both.

I am glad you support equal rights for gays and lesbians in all other aspects of the law and society. :)

no, I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

I reiterate my earlier question; why?

The Cat-Tribe[/B]]
[QUOTE]I had intended for it to die here. Other than in my poll, I will not discuss it further except in Moderation.

Well then why did you bring it back up?

As you know, I was on-topic in this thread from the beginning. I apologize for joining MSB for leading the thread astray -- again.

You didnt join me at all, you started it off again all by yourself. :rolleyes:
And yes, definitely back to the topic now.

I am glad you support equal rights for gays and lesbians in all other aspects of the law and society. :)
Yes, i dont think just because someone is "gay" will make them different from someone straight, got to remember that we are humans, we have differences but we are the same specie.

Gays are the imoral fabric of society. and surley will lead us to the fall of society, Your not born GAY, its not something you catch, it's a moral CHOICE!
and what really bites my Ass is all the media they get when they are less than 5% of the population, thats because Gays run Hollywood Do I hate gays? NO do I have Homophobia? NO Do I want Gay friends? NO Just like I do not want Criminals for fiends or liars or cheats for friends. My grandma use to say If you sleep with dogs you will get fleas. You are who you hang with and I want friends That have the same moral standards as me, I do not want child molesters, cheating husbands or wives for friends. it;s that simple Just my opinion :} Have a Nice Day

What I really cant stand is haveing gay crap thrown down my throat everytime I turn on the TV, I think thats where my hostility comes from Go back in the Closet!!!!!!!!!!

Why could'nt Hollywood been run by starving pigmies down in new guinne
How in the hell do you have a 420 name?

How in the hell do you have a 420 name?

I second the disbelief. I can only hope the post was attempting humour.

Gays are the imoral fabric of society. and surley will lead us to the fall of society, Your not born GAY, its not something you catch, it's a moral CHOICE!
and what really bites my Ass is all the media they get when they are less than 5% of the population, thats because Gays run Hollywood Do I hate gays? NO do I have Homophobia? NO Do I want Gay friends? NO Just like I do not want Criminals for fiends or liars or cheats for friends. My grandma use to say If you sleep with dogs you will get fleas. You are who you hang with and I want friends That have the same moral standards as me, I do not want child molesters, cheating husbands or wives for friends. it;s that simple Just my opinion :} Have a Nice Day

What I really cant stand is haveing gay crap thrown down my throat everytime I turn on the TV, I think thats where my hostility comes from Go back in the Closet!!!!!!!!!!

Why could'nt Hollywood been run by starving pigmies down in new guinne

Personally I regard it as exponentially more immoral to take so little care with one's writing.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]


Well then why did you bring it back up?



You didnt join me at all, you started it off again all by yourself. :rolleyes:
And yes, definitely back to the topic now.LOL
You keep saying "why did you bring that back up?" Which is bringing it back up. Then when he replies you say"why did you bring that back up?"
And look, I brought it back up! Aren't we funny. :p

[QUOTE=Mutated Sea Bass]LOL
You keep saying "why did you bring that back up?" Which is bringing it back up. Then when he replies you say"why did you bring that back up?"
And look, I brought it back up! Aren't we funny. :p

Dear oh dear.

[QUOTE=Bitchkitten]

Dear oh dear.That's alright, I've been up all night, so I'm getting a little silly. It's 5:30 AM here. Pretty soon I'll fall on my face so you won't have to put up with me anymore.

well then why should we give different rights to those who are mentally ill, they arent allowed some human rights i dont see why gays should get them personally i think we should :sniper: :mp5: them all

[QUOTE=Mutated Sea Bass]That's alright, I've been up all night, so I'm getting a little silly. It's 5:30 AM here. Pretty soon I'll fall on my face so you won't have to put up with me anymore.

Hoorayyyyy! :p

In spite of you going over to the dark side, that was great Swimmingpool. :fluffle:
:)

Hell, I just looked at that post again. Bloody long.

Dark side? Are you referring to the right side of the NS political compass? You know, it's called "right" for a reason. ;)

gays have the same rights as everyone else. The only thing that they bitch about is getting married.

they say that it's not that they arn't aloud to marry it's that they dont get the benafits associated with it.

so I say we give them somthing that just like maridge, and we give them all of the benafits that they want and then we call it somthing else to keep the pope of our backs. Simple eh?
Blacks have the same rights as everyone else. The only thing that they bitch about is getting public services.

they say that it's not that they arn't aloud to use public services it's that they dont get the benafits associated with it.

so I say we give them somthing that just like public services, and we give them all of the benafits that they want and then we call it somthing else to keep the racists off our backs. Separate but equal, eh?

Interesting things I've noticed:
*when discusing 'icky gays' it has so far refered to men. I think it is interesting that when a post has been gendered, I have yet to see fithly evil lesbians.
It's because most vocal homophobes are men. Gay men are felt, by them, to be a threat to their masculinity. Lesbians pose no such threat.

because a majority of people in a society do it, would have to bring under question the very meaning of the word normal.
Define "normal."

Swimmingpool[/B]]:)
It's because most vocal homophobes are men. Gay men are felt, by them, to be a threat to their masculinity. Lesbians pose no such threat.

I dont see myself as a homophobe, and I dont view gay men as any threat to my masculinity, if anything the very opposite.

Define "normal."

Natural behavior. I consider homosexuality abnormal behavior, in any form, and paedophilia abnormal and completely evil.

I dont see myself as a homophobe, and I dont view gay men as any threat to my masculinity, if anything the very opposite.

Natural behavior. I consider homosexuality abnormal behavior, in any form, and paedophilia abnormal and completely evil.

Um. Perhaps you'd better define "natural."

Because homosexuality is natural. Both in humans and in other species.

Why do some people think that gays want "special rights"?

I dont see myself as a homophobe, and I dont view gay men as any threat to my masculinity, if anything the very opposite.

I should have noted, they subconsciously feel gays to be a threat to their masculinity.

Natural behavior. I consider homosexuality abnormal behavior, in any form, and paedophilia abnormal and completely evil.
Does this mean that I, sitting in a house, using a computer am unnatural and abnormal? You are doing the same thing, presumably, so how are you any different in that way from a homosexual?

I should have noted, they subconsciously feel gays to be a threat to their masculinity.

Does this mean that I, sitting in a house, using a computer am unnatural and abnormal? You are doing the same thing, presumably, so how are you any different in that way from a homosexual?

Nice. Very nice.

This is may be semantic, but I'm wondering what you guys think.

For describing someone with a hatred or negative definition of homosexuals, I would personally choose the phrase "anti-gay bigot". I think a hatred of gays is a behaviour transmitted through peer groups and parental indoctrination, much like racism.

"Homophobe", to me, implies the idea of a "phobia". I've been told a phobia can have neurological causes, and in extreme cases is actually protected as a disability. I would hate to see discriminatory behaviour protected as a compulsive disorder, although I'm sure that would be unlikely.

My point is, I think those who feel compelled to attack or mistreat gays are probably influenced primarily by social, cultural, and religious attitudes, not by brain chemistry. While a phobia could be treated with medication and cognitive behavioural therapy, I think what we are calling "homophobia" could better be treated with education and a continuing trend towards social tolerance.

And for those of you who are thinking it, no, I am not proposing that we begin 4th period homeroom with "Butt-Sex is A-Okay" lectures, I'm just saying we might stress to young people that its not balanced to attack, hate, or discriminate against people because they're gay. You pack of Jiffs.

Bingo!

Marriage was/is a religious institution that government has co-opted and regulated to death. (Where the hell was "separation of church and state" when this shit started???)

Gays and the government need to back the hell out of the RELIGIOUS institution of marriage. The government has the right to make any regulation/law regarding "civil unions" that it wants, but not to twist the institution of "marriage".

Pardon my "rantiness", but the whole subject of gay "marriage" pisses me off.

Marriage was/is a Common Law institution, which was ursurped in most states for legislative marriage laws. See, it had to do with usurpation of the Common Law through civil means, as opposed to anything bearing on religion. Marriage isn't, nor has been a religious institution (except under the Roman Church, in descend of the Holy Roman Empire, from its relation to the Roman Empire in descent of Caesar Augustus).

At the time of Caesar Augustus, civil mandates were made to control marrital relations in the empire. This civil principles were descended to the Roman Church through Constantine.... Maintained through the Civil Law in descent in the Holy Roman Empire, and eventually into the kingdoms of Europe under that empire.

This civil view, with overthrown in England, by the signing of the Magna Carta, and the first documentation of the Common Law principles of England (overthrowing the civil law)... Marriage, as it was originally, was placed back into the realm of "contract law" (aka Common Law), an operation of individuals only, apart from systematic legsislation. This "Common Law" concept was inherited by the English Colonies in America which became the United States.

Now, Marriage is still, at present, not legislated at the federal level. It has remained an institution of the people or states since the inception of this country... Laws and procedures varying from state-to-state in the legislation which has surplanted Common Law contract marriage since inception.

1. If we accept Marriage as a "Civil Institution" then gay marriage is inevitable. Since the law must treat all as equals.

2. If we accept Marriage as a "Common Law Institution" then gay marriage is inevitable, since anyone can draft marrital contract without government interference.

3. If we accept Marriage as a "Religious Institution" then gay marriage is inevitable, because their are some religions which support marrying of homosexuals/lesbians.

There is no way for the opposition to gay marriage to win on this issue. no matter where you place marriage in, or source it from, it always will lead to the same result. Homosexuals and Lesbians will be getting married in the near future. Either through an equalized Civil Institution, through the applicability of Common Law contract; or by religious institutions to which would perform such.

Why do some people think that gays want "special rights"?

That's the whole point: they don't. Yes, we want marriage, but not as a special right. If I have a relationship with another man for, say, ten years and we love each other deeply, don't you think it would be normal for us to want to seal that love by becoming legally married? And that's just one example. But we don't want it to be a special right. 'Our' (because I can only speak for myself, of course) goal is that homosexuality is legally equal to heterosexuality.
(Note that I said nothing about religion, as everybody has the right to believe what they want)

The Redeemer']Gay marriage should be illegal.
Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt.
What you do behind closed doors is your business, but thats where it stays. We shouldnt be changing laws everytime someone decides to try something new or different.

I hate the term "human rights". Your only "RIGHT" as a human is life. And even that is not a right, its a privaledge and a gift. But beside that, nothing is a RIGHT. Using that term means that the rest of the country/world absolutely HAS to give you something and its flat out wrong if they dont.
Thats rediculous. No one has the RIGHT to get married unless you meet the terms and qualifications of it. Just like no one has the RIGHT to drive unless you qualify for a license. The government can grant you rights but they always have stipulations and requirements. Just because you want or feel like doing something doesnt mean you automatically have the right to do so.

As far as gay rights, they have the same rights as any other individual has as a human being based on the laws of their country. But we shouldnt be changing all the rules to suit people. Its like reverse sexual discrimination. Instead of denying someone something based on sexual orientation, you're now making special exceptions and giving them things because of it.

Actually, "rights" are inherant. And there are "three" natural rights, LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY which are the basis of all other rights. All enumerated rights are an extension of one or more of the three basic rights.

Marriage most certainly is a quantifiable right, as it is a natural extension from LIBERTY and PROPERTY.

American juris is based upon the English Common Law.... The common law exists as principle of the three basic "natural rights"... And extends itself between people in the protection of one persons natural rights in relation to anothers. That is, the codified law only exists to "rule" the boundries between peoples rights for the protection of their rights.

For example, while laws against Murder may impact ones rights to LIBERTY... They impact it to protect anothers rights to LIFE.

Seperation clauses in religion exist to protect ones right to LIBERTY against anothers right to LIBERTY. As is the same to speech and press.

Any law, or legislation which seeks to impact one person/groups natural right(s), by the exercize of another group/persons natural rights must be questioned for its validity as a law. (Which is the purpose of the Courts as government.)

While your POV has validity from Romish Civil view of government and law. It has no bearing what-so-ever on government/law as it is founded in America.

Actually that guy is right, because if you think about it... if your born gay, that means everytime a baby craps it's diaper, it's having an orgasam of sexual pleasure (which is accounted for by freud, who was a dumbass and I can prove it... just not this late at night).

This has got to be one of the most idiotic statements ever made on this forum. What the hell are you talking about?

When people say it's a choice, it's more of a subconcious choice, rather then a: I decide to be gay!

The word choice implies conscious thought. If it is not conscious thought, it is not a choice. Meanwhile, do you think that the animals who demonstrate homosexuality choose to be homosexual?

All in all? Another stupid, heated argument, because no one has all the facts.

No one has all the facts in anything. Of course, in this debate, some of us have all the available facts, while the rest have rhetoric and revisionist history.

Gay rights, or whatever the hell they SHOULD be called, or WILL be called... yea they have a preference. So a guy likes a guy. Does that mean we should start treating them like the blacks in the south before the civil war?

Who said anything about starting? Many are already treated this way.

Yes, i dont think just because someone is "gay" will make them different from someone straight, got to remember that we are humans, we have differences but we are the same specie.

And yet you think that a man and a woman who choose to live as a single entity should have special rights that a man and a man or a woman and a woman who live in the exact same way should not.

Interesting.

Natural behavior. I consider homosexuality abnormal behavior, in any form, and paedophilia abnormal and completely evil.

Well, by your twisted definition of a word, you can consider anything you want.

If I decide that orange means "very expensive", then I would consider all yachts orange, regardless of their actual color.

Of course, by all conventional definitions of the word natural, homosexuality is natural behavior for those who are homosexual. In the realm of the animal kingdom, having certain members of the species who exhibit homosexual behavior is perfectly normal.

Well, being a lesbian myself, Gay Rights are very important to me.
So my opinions are biased, but honestly, I think that equal rights for gays are neccisary.

And one thing that pisses me off? When on shows they blur out two people of the same gender kissing, but of different genders, no.

In fact, if their are girls kissing and it's not censored, it's automatically rated X and not allowed to be shown on network TV. I hate them for that. I honestly do.
My bus driver won't let me tell this one kid on the bus what a homophobe is. She says it's 'adult talk.'

*eyeroll*

Mother effers.

Also, did you know that Shrub-man is promoting programs and books that tell you things, such as; You can get pregnet from touching someone of the oppisite genders parts.
And oppiste gender ingeneral.

This man is trying to corrupt I world. He's pissing me off so much, I can't even tell yah.

Also, did you know that Shrub-man is promoting programs and books that tell you things, such as; You can get pregnet from touching someone of the oppisite genders parts.


You can. Sperm don't particularly care *how* they end up in a vagina, as long as they do.

Ekland- being gay is no choice...well I guess everything in the world is a choice, but maybe not a very practical one. I gave you a choice. You can either cut off your arms and legs and live the rest of your life as a quadriplegic or you can go one living as you are now...how you were born. Now, you see...this is a very special choice that you have been given. Many people do it, and only the special few who can handle it are chosen. It is both an honor and a privilege...sure it would inconvenience you, but that is beside the fact... you will be adored for it. Anyone who chooses not to do this is considered crazy and no one will understand why. Your life would be made a living hell.

Now "choosing homosexuality" is much like that. You are born into this orientation...but the world makes you out to be a lunatic for actually trying to be who you are. They expect you to conform to their norms and if you don't you are ostracized.

Not that I'm not entirely for gay rights and not that I don't think that people are entirely entitled to shag who they want. BUT I am absolutely fed up with the whole "I was born like this" argument. Sometimes being who you are is not the right thing to do. It's just spoonfed liberal bollocks to say anything otherwise. We are animals. We are born animals. If allowed to be who we are at birth we would simply sit around all day shitting ourselves, shagging passing strangers andn sticking different parts of our bodies in our mouths.
What if who you are is a complete git? What if who you are is a mass murderer?

Yes, Im part of it, so Im it, in a sense.
The only thing that would part me from it, would be if it conceeded to the lowering moral standards of the West, as some other Churches have, from fear of pc.
And quit the dumb flaming will you?

Terminalia, is that you?

You can. Sperm don't particularly care *how* they end up in a vagina, as long as they do.

It's a technical possibility for someone to get pregnant from a public toilet seat. Scientific tests on even women's public toilet seats and found traces of live sperm.

If that doesn't stop you using public toilets I don't know what will. :rolleyes:

Not that I'm not entirely for gay rights and not that I don't think that people are entirely entitled to shag who they want. BUT I am absolutely fed up with the whole "I was born like this" argument. Sometimes being who you are is not the right thing to do.

And that sometimes is when it causes harm to yourself or others - which does not apply in the case of expressing natural sexuality.

i say we should just do away with/abolish marrige alltogether. i mean, it's going to crap anyway. divorce is on the rise, no real reason to be married anymore, nothings like it used to be.

seems like the only couples that want to be together and have a fighting chance these days are gay couples, because they fight to be together. why they want to join the b*tching, squabling married group defeats me.

rights should be given to non-married people, like long term boyfriend and girlfriend couples who don't believe in marrige but want to be together. marrige favors a religion, and other religions should have the same rights, even atheist.

so screw marrige, something else should be made up to take it's place.

Don't start me on the whole "it's OK if you're not hurting someone" argument either. Moral codes exist outside that. By stealing £5000 pounds from a multi-national company you are in no way hurting anyone. You are merely helping to fund the insurance and security industry. But stealing is wrong.

There are also varous things which are wrong but only hurt someone if you get caught. Adultery for example.

Don't start me on the whole "it's OK if you're not hurting someone" argument either. Moral codes exist outside that. By stealing £5000 pounds from a multi-national company you are in no way hurting anyone. You are merely helping to fund the insurance and security industry. But stealing is wrong.
Flawed example you are defiantly hurting SOMEONE even if it is the investors
You just are not hurting them “much”

And just because other moral codes exist do not make them right for everyone generally the “don’t hurt anyone” rule is the most socially viable code that seems to have the most social benefits (which is why it is widely adopted)

Don't start me on the whole "it's OK if you're not hurting someone" argument either. Moral codes exist outside that. By stealing £5000 pounds from a multi-national company you are in no way hurting anyone. You are merely helping to fund the insurance and security industry. But stealing is wrong.

You are hurting someone, by taking away their property. The fact that it is replaced is irrelevant.

There are also varous things which are wrong but only hurt someone if you get caught. Adultery for example.

Incorrect. Adultery harms your relationship whether you are caught or not. Adultery puts your partner at risk for disease, whether you are caught or not.

Putting someone at risk for harm is harm in and of itself.

There are also varous things which are wrong but only hurt someone if you get caught. Adultery for example.
It is wrong even before caught, and it does cause harm before hand (it is a breach of contract) … it is just the penalty after being caught

Again flawed example you can say no one is EVER hurt until they find out about the crime that does not make those crimes any less harmful just because the damaged parties do not know about it yet

I much prefer to say that gay rights are important because they are about allowing people freedom to express their love for each other rather than it being about any idea of "nature." We are humans because we defy nature. Love is not natural.

I much prefer to say that gay rights are important because they are about allowing people freedom to express their love for each other rather than it being about any idea of "nature." We are humans because we defy nature. Love is not natural.
It exists in nature therefore it is natural …you may want to check your definitions but I am pretty sure humans exist in nature

Incorrect. Adultery harms your relationship whether you are caught or not. Adultery puts your partner at risk for disease, whether you are caught or not.

Putting someone at risk for harm is harm in and of itself.

So if you've had a test for every single sexually transmitted disease then adultery is fine then?

So if you've had a test for every single sexually transmitted disease then adultery is fine then?
Nope ... that does not negate the first part (the harm to the relationship)

Just because the harmed party does not know about it yet does not make it any less harmfull

It exists in nature therefore it is natural …you may want to check your definitions but I am pretty sure humans exist in nature

Humans exist outside nature to and extent because of free will. We have broken free of some biological constraints on our lives and been able to change our lives as indivduals. Humans are an evolutionary oddity.

Nope ... that does not negate the first part (the harm to the relationship)

Just because the harmed party does not know about it yet does not make it any less harmfull

I am pretty sure there must be cases where adultery has helped a relationship or at least been a symptom of inherent problems rather than a cause of any more.

stealing hurts somebody cause somebody has to pay. adultery means there is something wrong with your relationship and you are hurting someone by not being loyal to that relationship and putting everything into it. even if they never find out, you still devalue the relationship therefore harming the other person mentally. on the other hand, if you both agree it's okay than it's fine with me ;D

i still hate cheaters. might as well just end it so he/she can find someone that's worth their time.

I still think that morals ultimately exist outside causing harm. Ultimately if you could find a way of breaking a moral code without hurting anybody (I'm sure in this wide hypothetical universe there must be some point where you could) you still wouldn't break it because what is right is right regardless of the rest of the world.

Humans exist outside nature to and extent because of free will. We have broken free of some biological constraints on our lives and been able to change our lives as indivduals. Humans are an evolutionary oddity.
You don’t seem to be getting it

Here is some help


na•ture P Pronunciation Key (n ch r)
n.
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein).
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.


The definition of nature

We fall under 1,2,3 at least we exist in nature it has NOTHING to do with biological constraints

I much prefer to say that gay rights are important because they are about allowing people freedom to express their love for each other rather than it being about any idea of "nature." We are humans because we defy nature. Love is not natural.

What a silly thing to say.

Of course, whether love is "natural" or not (and the very fact that we feel it makes it natural), the attractions that ultimately lead to love certainly are.

I still think that morals ultimately exist outside causing harm. Ultimately if you could find a way of breaking a moral code without hurting anybody (I'm sure in this wide hypothetical universe there must be some point where you could) you still wouldn't break it because what is right is right regardless of the rest of the world.
So you are a proponent of absolute or objective morality.
So how do YOU define what is objectively moral?

So if you've had a test for every single sexually transmitted disease then adultery is fine then?

If you are sleeping around, you are at increased risk for STDs. Period. There is no foolproof way to avoid them.

And you have yet to address the mental harm caused and the simple fact that an adulterer is being disloyal and breaking their word.

By those definitions murder, hate, war, art, beauty, love etc are almost inevitable. Human endevours are useless.

I still think that morals ultimately exist outside causing harm. Ultimately if you could find a way of breaking a moral code without hurting anybody (I'm sure in this wide hypothetical universe there must be some point where you could) you still wouldn't break it because what is right is right regardless of the rest of the world.

That belief is fine. However, what you can force upon others is only that which can be shown to be objectively immoral, that is - something that harms another.

If you are sleeping around, you are at increased risk for STDs. Period. There is no foolproof way to avoid them.

And you have yet to address the mental harm caused and the simple fact that an adulterer is being disloyal and breaking their word.

Why is disloyalty bad though if that disloyalty is never discovered though? That's my very point. Some things are wrong even if they don't hurt people.

Why is disloyalty bad though if that disloyalty is never discovered though? That's my very point. Some things are wrong even if they don't hurt people.
Knowledge of hurt is not necessary to be hurt, just because I do not know it yet does not make some of the consequences go away.

So you are a proponent of absolute or objective morality.
So how do YOU define what is objectively moral?

*Sigh* Didn't really want to mention this as will no doubt get jumped on but...I kind of define my objective morality through what God tells me to do. *Cowers in readiness for lynching*

By those definitions murder, hate, war, art, beauty, love etc are almost inevitable. Human endevours are useless.
How so? I am saying they exist within the realm of nature how the hell does that make them worthless?

Knowledge of hurt is not necessary to be hurt, just because I do not know it yet does not make some of the consequences go away.

There are still some immoral things which have no consequences hypothetically.

*Sigh* Didn't really want to mention this as will no doubt get jumped on but...I kind of define my objective morality through what God tells me to do. *Cowers in readiness for lynching*
That’s all good and fine but you have no proof to back it up. You believe it, and I respect that. But I don’t and there is not enough proof of such for me to allow you to press YOUR moral code on me.
You are fine to live by it as long as it does not harm me (see why the no harm rule is such a good one … it allows you to be who you are without me forcing my views on you)

Why is disloyalty bad though if that disloyalty is never discovered though? That's my very point. Some things are wrong even if they don't hurt people.

You ignore the fact that it is harmful whether they know about it or not.

How so? I am saying they exist within the realm of nature how the hell does that make them worthless?

You either define natural as everything and therefore saying gayness is natural has nothing to do with it's moral worth or you define gayness and therefore other things such as art and beauty and murder and hate as inevitable and thereby render them worthless.
I may have misread what you were saying first time round.

There are still some immoral things which have no consequences hypothetically.
You have not yet given a good example of one. By my definition Consequence is not necessary for it to be moral or immoral.

*Sigh* Didn't really want to mention this as will no doubt get jumped on but...I kind of define my objective morality through what God tells me to do. *Cowers in readiness for lynching*

Why would you get jumped on? I define my morality in the same way. Of course, we most likely have different moral views. In my eyes, that may mean that you are not actually listening to God. You would probably say the same as me.

For this reason, we have no right to expect others to follow our personal moral codes.

gay rights are very good. Why discriminate people for who they are? I completley disagree with adulterey, if you want to cheat on the person you should never have married them.

That’s all good and fine but you have no proof to back it up. You believe it, and I respect that. But I don’t and there is not enough proof of such for me to allow you to press YOUR moral code on me.
You are fine to live by it as long as it does not harm me (see why the no harm rule is such a good one … it allows you to be who you are without me forcing my views on you)

I don't force my views on anyone. If you'll look back I'm actually totally for gay rights.

I have proof in that I have met God several times. That is more prooof than i have of a lot of things that i hold to be true.

You either define natural as everything and therefore saying gayness is natural has nothing to do with it's moral worth or you define gayness and therefore other things such as art and beauty and murder and hate as inevitable and thereby render them worthless.
I may have misread what you were saying first time round.

Why should "natural" have anything to do with "moral".

The problem is that those who wish to enforce their own personal moral codes upon others scream the word "unnatural"! It is an improper word to use, as homosexuality (as well as art and beauty and murder and hate) is natural.

You either define natural as everything and therefore saying gayness is natural has nothing to do with it's moral worth or you define gayness and therefore other things such as art and beauty and murder and hate as inevitable and thereby render them worthless.
I may have misread what you were saying first time round.
Just because they exist in nature does not make anything “inevitable”, gayness is natural because it exists within nature

You are using nature synonymously with “right” when that is an incorrect usage

I don't force my views on anyone. If you'll look back I'm actually totally for gay rights.

I have proof in that I have met God several times. That is more prooof than i have of a lot of things that i hold to be true.
You only have subjective proof.
And it is fine for you to believe that gayness is not “right” morally as long as you don’t shove that down anyone’s throats

You mistake some of our arguments (and I think a lot of the problem stems from your incorrect usage of “natural”)

*Tries one last time to come up with a hypothetical situation*
I shag another man's wife then using a machine that hasn't been invented yet wipe her memory of the event and then wipe my own memory of the event. That is wrong but not hurting anyone (I hope!).

Something like that anyway.

Being gay is wrong, they should NOT be allowed to marry or have a civil union.

You only have subjective proof.
And it is fine for you to believe that gayness is not “right” morally as long as you don’t shove that down anyone’s throats

You mistake some of our arguments (and I think a lot of the problem stems from your incorrect usage of “natural”)

There is no such thing as objective proof. All prooof is subjective. We are only looking at shadows projected onto the walls of a cave.

*Tries one last time to come up with a hypothetical situation*
I shag another man's wife then using a machine that hasn't been invented yet wipe her memory of the event and then wipe my own memory of the event. That is wrong but not hurting anyone (I hope!).

Something like that anyway.

You don't think erasing someone's memory causes harm?

Being gay is wrong,

Interesting. Is menstruation also wrong? How about sweating? If I like purple, is that wrong?

Being gay is wrong, they should NOT be allowed to marry or have a civil union.
Can I shag you :fluffle:

Why should "natural" have anything to do with "moral".

The problem is that those who wish to enforce their own personal moral codes upon others scream the word "unnatural"! It is an improper word to use, as homosexuality (as well as art and beauty and murder and hate) is natural.

That's my entire point!!!!!!!!! Please refer to my earlier posts. I've been sxitting here trying to explain why just because something is natural does not mean it is right. :headbang:

That's my entire point!!!!!!!!! Please refer to my earlier posts. I've been sxitting here trying to explain why just because something is natural does not mean it is right. :headbang:
Fair enough but you have no proof of a universal moral code. Therefore have not proved that homosexuality is morally wrong

At no point in the entire proceeding have I been trying to prove the wrongness or rightness of homosexuality. I have been trying to deconstruct (incredibly ineffectively) some of the premises both sides base their arguments.

*Colapses in exhaustion* :headbang:

At no point in the entire proceeding have I been trying to prove the wrongness or rightness of homosexuality. I have been trying to deconstruct (incredibly ineffectively) some of the premises both sides base their arguments.
Fair enough but I am a technical arguer sorry if I call you on definitions and logic flaws (specially in a medium that does not lend it self to accurate portrayal of actual feelings) But I will call you on the details :)

This has got to be one of the most idiotic statements ever made on this forum. What the hell are you talking about?


Personaly, because you don't agree with something, and immidiatly write it off as idiotic, proves that you don't know what the heck your saying either. Course, now, if you had proved it in a civilized manner (like you did with the rest of the points I made) then.. *shrugs*. And about the animals? Yea they chose. Anyone who says dog's don't have a choice, I dare you to go try to rape a horse, and tell me it can't say no after it kicks you in the chest. Animals do have choises, and they make them.

I totally understand the lynching I've received and accept that it is of my own doing. All gay people have my love and support. I'm tired and ill.
Bye All

Personaly, because you don't agree with something, and immidiatly write it off as idiotic, proves that you don't know what the heck your saying either. Course, now, if you had proved it in a civilized manner (like you did with the rest of the points I made) then.. *shrugs*. And about the animals? Yea they chose. Anyone who says dog's don't have a choice, I dare you to go try to rape a horse, and tell me it can't say no after it kicks you in the chest. Animals do have choises, and they make them.
Wow follow up with another incredibly weird post
It has nothing to do with agreement the original statement was incredibly logically flawed and this one is no better…

Example what does the dog part of your statement have to do with the follow up with a horse? How does a dogs choice effect the horses choice to kick you?

Thanks for posting again I needed a good laugh
:p

Personaly, because you don't agree with something, and immidiatly write it off as idiotic, proves that you don't know what the heck your saying either.

It has nothing to do with being idiotic. Your claim was that, if you are born gay, then using the bathroom must cause orgasm. That is a purely idiotic claim, if for no other reason than the fact that excrement doesn't cause orgasm in grown gay men.

And about the animals? Yea they chose. Anyone who says dog's don't have a choice, I dare you to go try to rape a horse, and tell me it can't say no after it kicks you in the chest. Animals do have choises, and they make them.

So choice is a useless word in your vocabulary? Everything is choice? I chose to have blue eyes and I choose when to menstruate?

I totally understand the lynching I've received and accept that it is of my own doing. All gay people have my love and support. I'm tired and ill.
Bye All
Don’t get us wrong we were debating not “lynching” it happens in debates. You have your right to your beliefs, and me and depub totally support people having their own beliefs don’t get us wrong …
But we will argue over the details (because sometimes they change the whole outcome)

I still think that morals ultimately exist outside causing harm. Ultimately if you could find a way of breaking a moral code without hurting anybody (I'm sure in this wide hypothetical universe there must be some point where you could) you still wouldn't break it because what is right is right regardless of the rest of the world.

"Moral code" is arbitrary. Ethics based morality (that is, morality based upon the relationship between individual human rights in relation to one another) is what the basis is here.

The entirety of English law is descended upon this concept. That which effects the rights of another (life, liberty, property) is the concern of the law. This is called "Common Law". Where there is no "violation of another" there is no crime. Because a crime requires that one persons rights must be violated by another for their to be "wrong".

Therefore there is no such thing as "breaking a moral code" without "harming anybody", because the only legal morality, is where another is violated. You're confusing social morality (ethics based law) with individual morality. Two different concepts. A person can consider something "wrong" personally, which is not necessarily "wrong" socially.

For example, amongst the Orthodox Catholic religion, for a marriage to be "right" (as a sacrement) it must be presided over by a "Priest"... Marriage which were not "formalized" by this Catholic "Priest" are "wrong". That is, not considered an "actual" marriage in the religion. This is a "personal" morality"... The "violation" is not a violation of another... But rather of the personal views of the individual.

US and english law is based upon the Common Law, where violations only exist in the precense of a "wronged" party... That is, the only violations which actually exist, are those where another party has been wronged by the act. Theft, Murder, etc. is "wrong" because its an attack upon the LIFE/PROPERTY of another. It has no bearing on "individual morality" or "personal morality"... Personal morality may see it "Wrong" in other ways, but social/Common Law morality sees it wrong because of how it effected or can effect the "victim".

In my personal morality, homosexuality is a sin, it is "wrong" and therefore homosexuals marrying is "wrong" in my personal views.... I handle this in my religious views as any other "Wrong"... I talk to these people, witness to them, and the like.

That being said, however, I also recognize the difference between my "personal morality" and that of the overal social morality of my place in society. That while I am free to my personal views, there are other views, and others in posession of rights equal to my own. These people are in exercize of this "free-will" (or free-agency) as you mentioned, and are capable of formulating their own personal morality in issues. Being "social" and "personal" I recognize that, while their acts may be a violation of my individual personal views as towards "morality", they are not in violation of any "Social morality" as expressed in a free society, as there is no "wronged" party, to which the social law can be held accountable for. Therefore their "homosexuality" and their desire for "marriage" are not "wrong".

They are held, in my belief, accountable to God, for violations of God's laws, once again, in my personal morality... They are not accountable to me, for their violations... But to God. And it is not my purpose to "force" them into accountability to myself or others for violations that are to God alone. Socially, their "personal relationship" can only be in accountability to themselves... And it is my duty to protect this social morality to their individuals rights as persons, regardless of my individual morality (which has no bearing outside of myself, or my religion as a whole).

My personal morality stops where anothers personal morality begins. Were they to seek marriage in my own religious institution, I would be against it, and to force my religious institution to perform such would be placing one view of personal morality over that of another. At the same time, forbidding another the authority to marry them, would be a violation of their personal morality by setting my own over theirs. Also a violation.

If marriage can be defined, in the social and civil order of things, based upon personal religious criteria, then I place my own views in danger by setting precedence where religion (and therefore personal morality) may be legislated. If I were to create precedence where government could legislate baptism, I could set precedent where they could place invalidation upon my own views of baptism. This was the views of the founding fathers in exercize of their operations... Recognizing the dangers, as descended from a "moral order" Europe, of basing law in a single realm of personal beliefs, or instituted religion. Government is a monster, and if you mix religious views into governmental legislation, you set precedence where your own religious views become open to oppression by the very same precedent you gave power to. That to protect you own rights of liberty in regards to adoption of particular views, that you must also protect the right to those views that others hold, even if they are counter to your own views...

I have no desire, unlike many of the theonomic and Revisionist persons in my religion, to repeat the errors we made centuries ago in Europe... And I warn everyone of in my religion of the dangers posed in taking the route, whereby you make the civil authority the disciplinarian over religious morality.

*Tries one last time to come up with a hypothetical situation*
I shag another man's wife then using a machine that hasn't been invented yet wipe her memory of the event and then wipe my own memory of the event. That is wrong but not hurting anyone (I hope!).

Something like that anyway.

Nope, still wrong in the realm of relational ethics.

It is another man's wife. Your "sex" with her, cause violation of the "social contract" (marriage) whether or not the party knows it or not. It is still "wronging" another.... By violating the "social agreement" that exists.

You may not get "caught" and therefore nothing may be done about it. But if the act is found out... It can be prosecuted as a "violation" because you caused and were party to, the violation of the contract between the wife and her husband. You're performing and entering into a violation of contractural obligations between the persons.

Being gay is wrong, they should NOT be allowed to marry or have a civil union.

How is "being gay", "wrong"?

Personaly, because you don't agree with something, and immidiatly write it off as idiotic, proves that you don't know what the heck your saying either. Course, now, if you had proved it in a civilized manner (like you did with the rest of the points I made) then.. *shrugs*. And about the animals? Yea they chose. Anyone who says dog's don't have a choice, I dare you to go try to rape a horse, and tell me it can't say no after it kicks you in the chest. Animals do have choises, and they make them.

So animals are sapient and have free will?

"<snip>

Wow.

That was a great post. Thank you for it. Though we certainly disagree in our personal moralities, our social ones are right alligned. I'd be proud to stand beside you any day to fight for freedom for all.

Originally Posted by Leo420
Your not born GAY, its not something you catch, it's a moral CHOICE!


I just want to backtrack a bit to the born gay/become gay argument.
Tonight when you curl up in bed with your significant other take a moment to breath in the scent of them, feel their skin slide against yours and take time to trace the curves of their body. How do you feel? Does it feel right, do they fit and complete you? When I'm with my wife, I fit! Everything about her feels right to me. It doesn't with men. Yes, I could leave my wife of 10 years right now, take up with a man and make the choice to have only men in my bed from now on, but it won't feel right.
If you jump into bed with the opposite gender tonight, how will it feel? (and yes, I am going deeper than sex here, I'm talking beyond the libido)
Is my sexuality a choice? Only in who I have sex with. Deep down, where it really counts, women fit better then men.
hmmm, there she is now......I'm gonna go test my theory.... :p

And, on the nature vs. choice argument:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/09/pheromones.study.reut/index.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A compound taken from male sweat stimulates the brains of gay men and straight women but not heterosexual men, raising the possibility that homosexual brains are different, researchers in Sweden reported on Monday.


I wish I could make a conscious decision to turn on parts of my brain. Pleasure center activation on demand would be nice =)

It has nothing to do with being idiotic. Your claim was that, if you are born gay, then using the bathroom must cause orgasm. That is a purely idiotic claim, if for no other reason than the fact that excrement doesn't cause orgasm in grown gay men.



So choice is a useless word in your vocabulary? Everything is choice? I chose to have blue eyes and I choose when to menstruate?
technically you do have some say. pheremones, the pill, the patch, etc.

technically you do have some say. pheremones, the pill, the patch, etc.

Yeah, but I don't have the choice to react to those things. It just happens. I want to be able to turn it on and off at will, like homosexuals apparently can.

I think that there is nothing bad about gay pplz, and there is nuthing different btween gay people and straight people. here, this could be 2 people of opposite sex or of same sex:
:fluffle:

And, on the nature vs. choice argument:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/09/pheromones.study.reut/index.html




I wish I could make a conscious decision to turn on parts of my brain. Pleasure center activation on demand would be nice =)
science:1 religion:0

There should be gay rights. Every nation should make homosexuality legal. As Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Hubrycas, equality is important for hate to stop. Every individual should be protected by the law at all times and be given equal protection. We are all human beings. We all breathe, eat and sleep. The only thing that is different is our unique personalities. Equal rights for everyone!

So animals are sapient and have free will?

In varying degrees, I'd say yes they are/do.

Every individual should be protected by the law at all times and be given equal protection...... Equal rights for everyone!

Homosexuals can vote and hold public office.
Homosexuals can own property and run businesses.
Homosexuals can host television shows, publish books and work for NPR.
Homosexuals can own firearms and use them to defend life and property.
Homosexuals can receive medical treatment provided by the state.
Homosexuals can receive a public & college education at government expense.

...It's not like American homosexuals are living under Islamic law.

Homosexuals can vote and hold public office.
Homosexuals can own property and run businesses.
Homosexuals can host television shows, publish books and work for NPR.
Homosexuals can own firearms and use them to defend life and property.
Homosexuals can receive medical treatment provided by the state.
Homosexuals can receive a public & college education at government expense.

...It's not like American homosexuals are living under Islamic law.
And yet they can't get married in most states, or adopt in some others. The fact that these aren't as bad as sharia law doesn't make them ok.

Homosexuals can vote and hold public office.
Homosexuals can own property and run businesses.
Homosexuals can host television shows, publish books and work for NPR.
Homosexuals can own firearms and use them to defend life and property.
Homosexuals can receive medical treatment provided by the state.
Homosexuals can receive a public & college education at government expense.

Very cute. Deliberately deceptive bullshit, but cute.

Of course, homosexuals' rights to property and seek employment are not the same as for heterosexuals.

Nor are homosexuals' rights concerning medical treatment.

Same-sex couples are denied over 1,000 benefits, rights, and protections that federal law affords to married, heterosexual couples, as well as hundreds of such protections at the state level.

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees can be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation in 34 states.

Current U.S. immigration law does not allow lesbian and gay citizens or permanent residents to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.

Until just 2 years ago, it was constitutional to prosecute homosexuals for the crime of having sex with their partner. The crime of sodomy is still on the books in many, many states.

Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals are prohibited from serving openly in the military.

There are many, many ways in which homosexuals are denied equal protection under the law.

There are many, many, many more ways in which homosexuals are systematically discriminated against in other ways.


...It's not like American homosexuals are living under Islamic law.

Much to your apparent dismay. :rolleyes:

Homosexuals can vote and hold public office.
Homosexuals can own property and run businesses.
Homosexuals can host television shows, publish books and work for NPR.
Homosexuals can own firearms and use them to defend life and property.
Homosexuals can receive medical treatment provided by the state.
Homosexuals can receive a public & college education at government expense.

...It's not like American homosexuals are living under Islamic law.
And that in NO way justfies denying them the rest of their constitutional rights

In varying degrees, I'd say yes they are/do.

Sapience and free will hardly exist on a spectrum--either you have them or you don't.

Sapience and free will hardly exist on a spectrum--either you have them or you don't.
Thats debatable at best. Would you say a chimpanzee is more self aware than a mosquito or that a dolphin has better reasoning skills than a shrimp? Most evidence would tend to say yes.

Thats debatable at best. Would you say a chimpanzee is more self aware than a mosquito or that a dolphin has better reasoning skills than a shrimp? Most evidence would tend to say yes.

You are talking about sentience. . . I am talking about sapience. There is a difference in the two. Sapience lies along the continuum of self-awareness--but it is a point on that continuum. You are either sapient or you are not.

Actually that guy is right, because if you think about it... if your born gay, that means everytime a baby craps it's diaper, it's having an orgasam of sexual pleasure (which is accounted for by freud, who was a dumbass and I can prove it... just not this late at night). When people say it's a choice, it's more of a subconcious choice, rather then a: I decide to be gay!


You do realise, of course, that the percentage of homosexual males who engage in anal intercourse is approximately the same as the percentage of heterosexual males that do the same?

Does this mean that all men have orgasms when they defecate?

The Catholic Church has always been against gay marriage, as have other Christian churches.

Let us see evidence...

I've seen evidence that suggests quite the opposite... that, in fact, for MOST of the last 20 centuries, the 'church' has pretty much stayed out of marriages completely... with the exception of the very rich and powerful.

Terminalia, is that you?

*Shocked Amazement*

That REALLY WOULD explain a lot.....

*Shocked Amazement*

That REALLY WOULD explain a lot.....
You know what, I thought about the exact same thing two days ago.
Wierd.
The posting patterns match somewhat, but MSB hasn't said anything about comparing all his opponents to Nazis, which Terminalia did a few times in the threads I remember seeing him in ("Nazi views lol, have a good look at your own PC ones, how Nazi are they?"), if I'm remembering correctly, and nor does MSB seem to accuse all opponents of being 'too PC'.
Of course, I only knew of Terminalia for the last month or so of his NS-existance.

Im just arguing from a legal/political standpoint


And that in NO way justfies denying them the rest of their constitutional rights


WHOAA people, people. Listen to yourselves. Gays, under federal law are given equal rights, based on the constitution. Whatever the constitution leaves out, is up to the States to decide. Knowing this, the States can do whatever they want, and there shouldn't be a federal "ok" for it, since more than half the country disagrees. (the last time something like this happened, there was a civil war)

And by the way.. THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED, AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS. the BENEFITS of marriage, are BENEFITS... im not married, so i dont have them. My dog doesnt have them, my sister doesnt have them... Benefits dont have to be given, since, marriage is a religious thing (and it is). SO in order to keep a separation of church and state (which you liberals cry about all the time), the federal govt. thus, doesnt get involved in marriage.

HOWEVER, civil unions are different. In some states, civil unions are allowed, and in others, they are banned. AGAIN, this is a STATE'S RIGHT, and should remain so.

Im just arguing from a legal/political standpoint

WHOAA people, people. Listen to yourselves. Gays, under federal law are given equal rights, based on the constitution. Whatever the constitution leaves out, is up to the States to decide. Knowing this, the States can do whatever they want, and there shouldn't be a federal "ok" for it, since more than half the country disagrees. (the last time something like this happened, there was a civil war)

And by the way.. THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED, AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS. the BENEFITS of marriage, are BENEFITS... im not married, so i dont have them. My dog doesnt have them, my sister doesnt have them... Benefits dont have to be given, since, marriage is a religious thing (and it is). SO in order to keep a separation of church and state (which you liberals cry about all the time), the federal govt. thus, doesnt get involved in marriage.

HOWEVER, civil unions are different. In some states, civil unions are allowed, and in others, they are banned. AGAIN, this is a STATE'S RIGHT, and should remain so.

Um, hardly a single aspect of your "legal" standpoint is correct.

As a matter of constitutional law, marriage is a fundamental right. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html ), 388 US 1 (1967) ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..")

Marriage is not a simply religious thing. In case, you didn't notice the government is very much involved -- otherwise there could be no statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage!!!!! (And the First Amendment applies to the states, thank you very much.)

Also to say, homosexuals aren't denied equal protection under the laws because the Constitution says everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the laws is absurd. The Constitution is not self-executing. For nearly 100 years after the 14th Amendment granted equal protection under the laws to all citizens, African-Americans were denied that equal protection.

You also conveniently ignore other areas in which homosexuals do not have equal rights or equal protections under the law.

"Moral code" is arbitrary. Ethics based morality (that is, morality based upon the relationship between individual human rights in relation to one another) is what the basis is here.

The entirety of English law is descended upon this concept. That which effects the rights of another (life, liberty, property) is the concern of the law. This is called "Common Law". Where there is no "violation of another" there is no crime. Because a crime requires that one persons rights must be violated by another for their to be "wrong".

Therefore there is no such thing as "breaking a moral code" without "harming anybody", because the only legal morality, is where another is violated. You're confusing social morality (ethics based law) with individual morality. Two different concepts. A person can consider something "wrong" personally, which is not necessarily "wrong" socially.

(snip)

I'm so impressed. If I ever go to court, Iwant you and Cat-Tribe to represent me. Whether or not you're a lawyer.

Um, hardly a single aspect of your "legal" standpoint is correct.

As a matter of constitutional law, marriage is a fundamental right. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html ), 388 US 1 (1967) ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..")

Marriage is not a simply religious thing. In case, you didn't notice the government is very much involved -- otherwise there could be no statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage!!!!! (And the First Amendment applies to the states, thank you very much.)

Also to say, homosexuals aren't denied equal protection under the laws because the Constitution says everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the laws is absurd. The Constitution is not self-executing. For nearly 100 years after the 14th Amendment granted equal protection under the laws to all citizens, African-Americans were denied that equal protection.

You also conveniently ignore other areas in which homosexuals do not have equal rights or equal protections under the law.



well, i read it, and what i got from it, is that the supreme court agreed with virginia state law. The govt is involved b/c ppl are petitioning for gay marriage, when the religious aspect of it is, that no church or religion I've heard of actually promotes gay marriage. If the govt stayed out of it, gay marriage would just NOT happen, and there wouldnt be a hissy fit about it.

and Amendment 1 is : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the govt. for a redress of grievances.

so dont give me that crap about 1st amendment rights being violated.

This being the case, leads me to what i was saying before, it is up to the states (and not the federal govt. including Congress) to decide, and/or each church/religious organization... and knowing none that condone gay marriage, it would thus be unheard of.

Like i said, civil unions are a different matter., im just talking about MARRIAGE.

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious term. I say, civil unions for everybody and leave the term "marriage" to churches. If you're against that, I'd say you're a homophobe. (Although it's almost as bad to force a bunch of Mormons, for instance, to recognize two men as "married")

I'm an atheist and got married. A lot of people are married in civil ceremonies. No religion involved in those. And several Protestant denominations in the US have no problem with gay marraige, and do commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples regularly. As do liberal Jews (not sure of the exact term) (Reform?)


Oh, and didn't they use the states rights garbage in pro-slavery arguements?

I'm an atheist and got married. A lot of people are married in civil ceremonies. No religion involved in those. And several Protestant denominations in the US have no problem with gay marraige, and do commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples regularly. As do liberal Jews (not sure of the exact term) (Reform?)


Oh, and didn't they use the states rights garbage in pro-slavery arguements?

1. my uncle got married in civil ceremonies too (he's white, his wife is black)
2. yes, they are called reform jews
3. states rights were also used in anti-slavery arguments too, but mostly there was a problem with the new states admitted to the Union in the west (from the MExican-American War). The north wanted to keep slavery where it was, the south wanted to expand it to new states, and the west wanted popular soveirgnty. The Emancipation Proclamation came after the virtual defeat of the south.

Honestly, i think popular soveirgnty is the best way to go on the issue.. have a vote within the state whether or not to allow Gay UNIONS.

well, i read it, and what i got from it, is that the supreme court agreed with virginia state law.

You have got to be joking. The ruling was the opposite.

You either did not read it or did not understand it.

Regardless, the Court has held many times -- going back to 1888 -- that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.

The govt is involved b/c ppl are petitioning for gay marriage, when the religious aspect of it is, that no church or religion I've heard of actually promotes gay marriage. If the govt stayed out of it, gay marriage would just NOT happen, and there wouldnt be a hissy fit about it.

Your understanding is bizarre.

1. Ever heard of a marriage license? Evey state regulates marriage. And have done so for decades at least.

2. No one is seeking to force a church or religion to recognize or grant marriages. The issue is the government's discrimination in who is allowed to marry.

3. Several churches do promote gay marriage.

4. If the government did not recognize marriage at all, it would be a wholly social and religious issue. But most heterosexuals would go apeshit.

and Amendment 1 is : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the govt. for a redress of grievances.

so dont give me that crap about 1st amendment rights being violated.

I did not say the ban on same-sex marriage violates the First Amendment. It violates the Fourteenth Amendment in 2 different ways -- it discriminates on the basis of gender and it denies homosexuals a fundamental right.

You erroneously argued that the First Amendment prohibited government from regulating marriage. That is patent nonsense.

Moreoever, the First Amendment does apply to the states -- as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/310/296.html ), 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (“We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws.”)

You pounding sand down a rat hole.

This being the case, leads me to what i was saying before, it is up to the states (and not the federal govt. including Congress) to decide, and/or each church/religious organization... and knowing none that condone gay marriage, it would thus be unheard of.

Like i said, civil unions are a different matter., im just talking about MARRIAGE.

And, as I said, the states are bound by the 14th Amendment and cannot deny equal protection under the law re marriage and cannot deny a fundamental right re marriage to same-sec couples.

Churches can do what they like. But many do recognize same-sex marriages.

*snip*

Honestly, i think popular soveirgnty is the best way to go on the issue.. have a vote within the state whether or not to allow Gay UNIONS.

But there is this little stumbling block called the U.S. Constitution.

Also, there are common decency and human rights.

God, what is it about US conservatives and gays? In many European nations we just gave the gays the equal rights they wanted, and everything was fine. It's really easier just not to care.

What's wrong with gay marriage? What are you scared of?

But there is this little stumbling block called the U.S. Constitution.

Also, there are common decency and human rights.

Unfortunately, some people have a different idea of what constitutes common decency than you and I.