NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember that concept, yes. However...

To limit legally binding 'marriage's to adults would surely be an infringement on the rights of all 5 year old / 79 year old couples out there! We can't let that happen in America, now can we? We'd all be bigots and probably be accused of approving slavery.
Not really.
5 year olds will age, and come of a consenting age. Then be allowed to marry.

Although an argument is starting to take form. This could lead to the (possibly valid) argument that homosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed, unless one individual is willing to have a sex change.
That way all individuals are still allowed to marry the partner of their choice without being discriminated against.
I don't buy that as a valid solution, however.

I remember that concept, yes. However...

To limit legally binding 'marriage's to adults would surely be an infringement on the rights of all 5 year old / 79 year old couples out there! We can't let that happen in America, now can we? We'd all be bigots and probably be accused of approving slavery.

Actually no because there are..I think "clauses" is the term I'm looking for..that restrict the rights of a child because they aren't considered to have the ability of consent at their age because they are too young to understand certain things. So they are being protected by having their rights limited at that age.

Nope as a five year old wouldn't remember what was happening the next day because he's FIVE-fucking years old and he doesn't have hormones or a fully developed mental process yet. Like I said before it is a foolish comparison because in the US we have this thing known as statutary rape.
Yes, and thank GOD for that! And in the US we also have a president against gay marriage. Thank God for that too. Perhaps we should give it a law name as well? Same sex rape? Because even if the five year old agreed to the sex it would still be called rape. Yes. Same Sex rape sounds good.

You're all hyprocrites. You think that 5 yr old / 79 yr old example is rediculous, but it's the road you are heading on IF gay 'marriage' is ever legalized.

And you have been most constructive. All you've done is argue much in the same manner I have been doing with anybody who disagrees with you.

All you have managed to do is show off your sickening misguided thoughts on matters that I have already expressed are much more important than simple gay marriage. It's about the decay of society and you would sit by and let it happen.

Actually, he's been one of the most constructive people in this flame war. And since nobody who really disagrees with him actually has any proof or evidence to back up their claims that will be accepted any anyone else but those who disagree with him, then he has no reason to vary his arguements.

You have nothing to fill your arguements but hatred and scorn, and when someone finally blows their top from bashing their heads against a brick wall - er, I mean, talking with you, you belittle and insult them.

Pot. Kettle. Black, and you were PWNed before.

Religion has no place in Civil Government anymore, period. By saying Homosexuals Can't Marry, the Government is clearly interfiring with religion.

And you have been most constructive. All you've done is argue much in the same manner I have been doing with anybody who disagrees with you.

All you have managed to do is show off your sickening misguided thoughts on matters that I have already expressed are much more important than simple gay marriage. It's about the decay of society and you would sit by and let it happen.

And you'd just sit and complain about the "decay of society" which sounds like a certain fellow in a book I've read. Confederacy of Dunces perhaps you've heard of it? I doubt it though. You will note that this thread is about gay marriage not "the decay of society" as such please stay on topic. Also I haven't argued in the same way you have as I am not homophobic and I would agree with people if they had good reasoning or arguments or evidence but such is not the case. Further I use actual logic based off non-religous things to prove the point that gay marriage should be legal in the US because the only reasons to disavow it are religous in nature and there is a seperation of Church and State.

1) I was quoting. That's why I had quote marks around "in the christian religion". I made no assumption to your religion, actually. I was responding to an aspect of the/some christian religion that may, or may not, be shared by your own personal beliefs.

2) You're welcome to my response. I'm glad you found it intelligent.

3) That you for the "euro trash" comment. Does it still apply to me, even if I'm Australian? I'm going to get a badge made up with "euro trash", which can sit next to my one that says "on the pull". (I like the double meaning of the word "pull", since here in Australia it means something completely different to in Britain. I'm not sure what Americans use.)

4) I don't actually know anything about Gaian religion. I admit to having skipped previous posts (I read this thread yesterday before I left from work, so it's now 24 hours later, and I skipped a bunch of posts in the middle). Please point me to any previous posts where you explained any relevant beliefs that you'd like me to address, or explain how your beliefs differe, and are relevant to the debate.

Cheers!
3) Are you aboriginal? If not, then yes.


Dude, you seriously want me to tell you? Fine here we go. (NO JUDGEING)

Gaianism is the beleif of gaia, the mortal spirit of the earth. In Gaianism, the planet earth is a living evolving sencid being that guides the evolution of all beings on it's surface. In Gaianism all creatures have a soul, animals, humans, and plants, this soul is given to the creature at the time of it's conception, by gaia. Further, when a being dies it's spirit returns to gaia bringing with it it's experiences and memories to help gaia evolve and survive. This in turn aids gaia in the evolution of all speicies so that they may be more capable of survival.

Gaianism doesn't really have anything to do with morals other than, that to gaianist women are sacred in the fact that they are capable of taking to cells and transforming it into life. Along with that family is the most imortant thing to a gaianist, also to gaianist their children are seen as their reincarnations (genetically not spiritually) and that they are the key to eternal life (of course speaking genetically, genetic heritage).

Ok I think that's about it, there might be more, but like anyone with a religion I'd have to read up on it.

Na, though I may assimilate it later, as for the birth rate, I said that before dumb ass. It's just affecting the marriage rate, but it did fall much more quickly than before.
Yea that's right you said it before and I quoted it. notice a pattern yet?

Yes, and thank GOD for that! And in the US we also have a president against gay marriage. Thank God for that too. Perhaps we should give it a law name as well? Same sex rape?

What grade are you in? Eventually they'll teach you in school that you have to pass a law - it isn't law just because the President thinks it should be.

And sex between two consenting adults isn't "rape."

Actually, the opposite tends to be true. People are usually more bigoted in an impersonal sense, and less in a personal sense. Such as, a person who is generally racist might still have a friend who is of another race, and exempt that person from the idea they have of that race. And a lot of homophobic people have a family member who is gay. In fact, YOU probably have a family member who is gay.

Case in point: Dick Cheney and his gay daughter...he's a homophobe when it comes to politics, but he hasn't kicked his daughter out of the fold now has he?
Prove it, no but, their is a differance between gays and lesbians, she can get artificial insemination and still give him grand babies. Guys can't do that. So parents seem to be more accepting of lesbian daughter than gay sons.

Yea that's right you said it before and I quoted it. notice a pattern yet?
Yes, you're a lap dog of satan. And you don't like to read through previous posts.

Prove it, no but, their is a differance between gays and lesbians, she can get artificial insemination and still give him grand babies. Guys can't do that. So parents seem to be more accepting of lesbian daughter than gay sons.

does the word adoption cross your mind? what else do you do with those non-aborted babies?

As we are talking about America I feel I should point ou that we already have a 50% divorce rate and a large number of single parent families. So you can't say marriage problems have gay marriage to blame.
I didn't say that, I said that gay marriage caused a decrease in in marriage birth rates in Scandinavia.

I didn't say that, I said that gay marriage caused a decrease in in marriage birth rates in Scandinavia.

your argument doesnt make any logical sense. how is there going to be a fucking increase in marriage birth rates!?

I didn't say that, I said that gay marriage caused a decrease in in marriage birth rates in Scandinavia.

Prove it. You havn't so far, and I've read every single post in this thread from start till now.

does the word adoption cross your mind? what else do you do with those non-aborted babies?
Adoption, gays can't adopt in America, send them to millitary training facilities and make them into killing machines.

3) Are you aboriginal? If not, then yes.
No, I'm not. Cool, I'm euro-trash!
Genetically I'm mediterranean(sp?), so I should definately count!


Dude, you seriously want me to tell you? Fine here we go. (NO JUDGEING)

If it's relevant to the debate? Then of course :)
I have no intention of judging anyones religious beliefs, although I may/do judge the effect those beliefs may have on others.


Gaianism is the beleif of gaia, the mortal spirit of the earth. In Gaianism, the planet earth is a living evolving sencid being that guides the evolution of all beings on it's surface. In Gaianism all creatures have a soul, animals, humans, and plants, this soul is given to the creature at the time of it's conception, by gaia. Further, when a being dies it's spirit returns to gaia bringing with it it's experiences and memories to help gaia evolve and survive. This in turn aids gaia in the evolution of all speicies so that they may be more capable of survival.

Gaianism doesn't really have anything to do with morals other than, that to gaianist women are sacred in the fact that they are capable of taking to cells and transforming it into life. Along with that family is the most imortant thing to a gaianist, also to gaianist their children are seen as their reincarnations (genetically not spiritually) and that they are the key to eternal life (of course speaking genetically, genetic heritage).

Ok I think that's about it, there might be more, but like anyone with a religion I'd have to read up on it.
This sounds very cool. Does this belief inpact your opinion on the gay marriages topic? I can see the importancs of women and fertility having an impact, but on the other hand, if Gaia is evolving species, couldn't gay marriage be part of that evolution?
And surely gay people, while deprived of their genetic legacy, are still doing Gaia's work by not leaving a legacy? (assuming they are strictly homosexual and never have intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. which seems somewhat implausable for a large gay community.)
At the very least they are adding their experiences to gaia, and the guided evolution will weed out homosexuality naturally, whether they marry or not, if homosexuality is not a desired trait?

I'm not trying to tell you what your religion is (of course, since I previously knew nothing about it!) I'm just questioning, based on what you said, whether is has any problems with homosexual marriages.

If your religious beliefs didn't have any bearing on this debate, I apologize for this tangent.

I also apologize, as it's time for me to go home, I won't be here to respond to you, although I will log in tomorrow.

Gaianism doesn't really have anything to do with morals other than, that to gaianist women are sacred in the fact that they are capable of taking to cells and transforming it into life. Along with that family is the most imortant thing to a gaianist, also to gaianist their children are seen as their reincarnations (genetically not spiritually) and that they are the key to eternal life (of course speaking genetically, genetic heritage).



So what about heterosexual couples who can't have kids? Should that be outlawed? According to your religion, only heterosexual people of childbearing age who have a healthy sperm count and no reproductive issues should be legally allowed to get married?

If that's the case, then maybe you should be spending your energy trying to alter the laws to make all marriages between sterile, child-free and elderly hetero couples illegal.

Adoption, gays can't adopt in America, send them to millitary training facilities and make them into killing machines.

I think you need to recheck your facts.

does the word adoption cross your mind? what else do you do with those non-aborted babies?

Not the same thing. Most humans have a hang up about continuing their lineage. You can’t do that with adoption.

Adoption, gays can't adopt in America, send them to millitary training facilities and make them into killing machines.

...oh, yeah, that'll go over real well.

Read David Brin's The Postman for reasons why NOT to do that.

your argument doesnt make any logical sense. how is there going to be a fucking increase in marriage birth rates!?
Im ignoring you from now on, obviously you need to read through the posts before you respond.

Snip....

Pot. Kettle. Black, and you were PWNed before.

Religion has no place in Civil Government anymore, period. By saying Homosexuals Can't Marry, the Government is clearly interfiring with religion.
What is PWNed?

I think you need to recheck your facts.
What every at least they can't adopt in texas, and I know that one for fact.

And you'd just sit and complain about the "decay of society" which sounds like a certain fellow in a book I've read. Confederacy of Dunces perhaps you've heard of it? I doubt it though. You will note that this thread is about gay marriage not "the decay of society" as such please stay on topic. Also I haven't argued in the same way you have as I am not homophobic and I would agree with people if they had good reasoning or arguments or evidence but such is not the case. Further I use actual logic based off non-religous things to prove the point that gay marriage should be legal in the US because the only reasons to disavow it are religous in nature and there is a seperation of Church and State.
Gay 'marriage' and the decay of society are intertwined if you were even reading what I was saying before, and that affects my opinion, and should affect other's opinions on the matter as well. So it was perfectly on topic.

I have attempted to argue with logic and example in history that the legalizing of public homosexuality, and therefore, the further distancing from the church's morales from the law is only speeding up the downfall of everything we know as right and wrong. As soon as we take that element out of our judicial system, it becomes even more messed up than it already is today. So much wrong in today's world and it's because of people, minorities, that claim oppression when there is simply none. Gay 'marriage' being the topic at hand that's what i've been focusing on. I'll say it again, for the type of reason a man can't go in a woman's bathroom, Gays should not be allowed a marriage, or legal binding of any kind. What they do sexually (for fun and perverse pleasure exclusively, too) is their business, but if they are not even going to have a possibility of actually reproducing, than there is no purpose in it, or the relationship itself. It does not make sense that they should be known as a couple when, biologically, they are not one... spiritually, they are not one, and yet legally, they should be one? I see no logic in this whatsoever.

It would appear i'm simply outnumbered here, and I think i've responded to everybody that was actually presenting a point worth noticing. 3 in the morning and I suppose i'll have to see how many people take potshots at me while i'm asleep. Thanks for the discussion everybody... it proved interesting.

Not the same thing. Most humans have a hang up about continuing their lineage. You Can’t do that with adoption.

I can see where you are coming from, but what about children born out of wedlock? it carries on lineage but it isnt from your life/marriage partner or whatever

...oh, yeah, that'll go over real well.

Read David Brin's The Postman for reasons why NOT to do that.
Coward, you just don't want to see the wonderfull destruction that such soldiers would bring upon our enemies.

and what would happen then? i doubt it will make people think it over any more, as people generally dont get married if they expect to divorce. it will probably just create a lot more unhappy marriages and affairs.


haha! That means we would have to throw people in jail for infidelity. Because that's the only second defence for marriage.

What is PWNed?

Its something gamers say when they win a devestating victory.

Prove it, no but, their is a differance between gays and lesbians, she can get artificial insemination and still give him grand babies. Guys can't do that. So parents seem to be more accepting of lesbian daughter than gay sons.

Prove what? That Cheney didn't kick Mary out of the fold? Just watch the television footage of them on stage with him on the campaign trail. With her lesbian partner, no less.

As for the artificial insemination thing, that's just something you're making up, not some social trend. Guys can indeed still give grandbabies if that's the litmus test...some of my gay (male) friends have adopted, and others have arrangements with surrogates. Others don't want kids. I don't want kids either, and I'm heterosexual and married, so I don't really understand how the issue of reproduction has anything to do with whether marriage is valid.

Coward, you just don't want to see the wonderfull destruction that such soldiers would bring upon our enemies.

Coward? Nope. Not a coward. Would a coward renounce being saved by Jesus Christ in public, in front of a large group on a conservative college campus?

I'm more suicidal than anything else.

No, what I am is a firm beleiver of the citizen-soldier, who lives out a civilian life then goes off to war when needed.

I don't like most of the military "YEAH WE KICK ASS AND MOST OF OUR CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP COULDN"T LEAD US OUT OF A WET PAPER BAG" attitude.

So what about heterosexual couples who can't have kids? Should that be outlawed? According to your religion, only heterosexual people of childbearing age who have a healthy sperm count and no reproductive issues should be legally allowed to get married?

If that's the case, then maybe you should be spending your energy trying to alter the laws to make all marriages between sterile, child-free and elderly hetero couples illegal.
Sure, if you see it that way, but I don't, you just need to stop being so mean.

What every at least they can't adopt in texas, and I know that one for fact.

Sure they can. One partner adopts as a single parent. The other partner just doesn't have any legal parental rights.

Ya need proof look at Amsterdam. The year they allowed gay marrige the in law birth rate plumeted to less than 50% the year after it was lower than 10%. It's not that they weren't fucking, it's that they wern't marrying, and in the christian religion that's not a good thing. To have children without marrying.
No you are right you ddin't say it was scandinavia. You've been calling us funny but mean names for quoting you.

What every at least they can't adopt in texas, and I know that one for fact.

hehehe I cant be ignored

I dont see anything supporting that on http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Adoption_and_Foster_Care/How_to_Start/basic_requirements.asp

the only thing close to it is that u need proof of marriage and/or divorce. I dont know the whole thing on that in relations to gays because you can be single too

Coward? Nope. Not a coward. Would a coward renounce being saved by Jesus Christ in public, in front of a large group on a conservative college campus?

I'm more suicidal than anything else.

No, what I am is a firm beleiver of the citizen-soldier, who lives out a civilian life then goes off to war when needed.

I don't like most of the military "YEAH WE KICK ASS AND MOST OF OUR CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP COULDN"T LEAD US OUT OF A WET PAPER BAG" attitude.
I don't, civillian soldiers are what reall soldiers call cannon fodder. But that is the truth.

hehehe I cant be ignored

I dont see anything supporting that on http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Adoption_and_Foster_Care/How_to_Start/basic_requirements.asp

the only thing close to it is that u need proof of marriage and/or divorce. I dont know the whole thing on that in relations to gays because you can be single too
Gays can't marry in texas, therefore, they can't adopt. And in texas their out of state marriage is not accepted.

No you are right you ddin't say it was scandinavia. You've been calling us funny but mean names for quoting you.

Thats all he does, period.

...in fact, thats what most of this thread has been about.

I can see where you are coming from, but what about children born out of wedlock? it carries on lineage but it isnt from your life/marriage partner or whatever

Should have made it clearer. I meant genetic lineage. I was commenting on why parents accept lesbians better than gays. They want to see their genes passed on. Gay men can still use artificial insemination, though. They just need to find a surrogate mother. Anyway, I think the acceptance might have more to due with the way society views gays and lesbians. Perpetuated in the media (American anyway) is the idea that lesbians occasionally “switch sides”, while gay men don’t. Anyway, perhaps the parents think, “maybe she’s just confused and she’ll realize she isn’t.” I don’t think this line of thought is as common with parents of gays.

Gays can't marry in texas, therefore, they can't adopt. And in texas their out of state marriage is not accepted.

but there can be single parents. I dont think it descriminates against what orientation you are as long as you arent married

I don't, civillian soldiers are what reall soldiers call cannon fodder. But that is the truth.

Wanna know what the difference is between a soldier and a warrior?

A warrior fights all the time.

A soldier fights to do his job, then goes home and does something else until he has to fight again.

I'd rather have an army made up of fellow citizens than what would be a de-facto tribe of warriors being paid from my taxes guarding my back. Sounds too much like paying tribute to barbarians so they won't hurt me.

Prove what? That Cheney didn't kick Mary out of the fold? Just watch the television footage of them on stage with him on the campaign trail. With her lesbian partner, no less.

As for the artificial insemination thing, that's just something you're making up, not some social trend. Guys can indeed still give grandbabies if that's the litmus test...some of my gay (male) friends have adopted, and others have arrangements with surrogates. Others don't want kids. I don't want kids either, and I'm heterosexual and married, so I don't really understand how the issue of reproduction has anything to do with whether marriage is valid.
Adoption doesn't count only genetically simular children, or in other words birth children. Nope, it's not a social trend either, but it's still an option for a lesbian who want's to give birth. THen you will die and burn in hell, hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha (Seriously people like you are fucking stupid, if you want to reduce popultaion only have one child, if you want to maintain a population have two, and if you want to increase have three. Stupid idiots.) And it doesn't and I never said it did, someone else did.

I dont see anything supporting that on http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Adoption_and_Foster_Care/How_to_Start/basic_requirements.asp

the only thing close to it is that u need proof of marriage and/or divorce. I dont know the whole thing on that in relations to gays because you can be single too

Which brings to mind another question: if the issue is the undermining of marriage, and having kids out of wedlock is so all-fired BAD, then why is it that it is legal for an unmarried person to adopt a child, even in the state of Texas? Hmmmm....

Maybe opposition to gay marriage really doesn't have anything to do with "the family." Maybe it's because it's really just about being a bigot.

As of this post, I will no longer reply in this thread.

Why?

Because its taking up too much of my time, I've said all my arguements and have had none of them dismantled, and I've PWNed the other side.

I've been quoted several times, and been asked to be worshipped by three people (I give you permission)

But none of my big long serious posts were ever touched by the opposition, and nobody except my own side has even mentioned them.

So, I win this argument. Next topic will be "Anal or Oral: Christians choose which way to be fucked!" ^^

Thats all he does, period.

...in fact, thats what most of this thread has been about.
I know and i should stop bothering. but a bit of flaming is a little fun. even if it's bad awful fun.

A warrior fights all the time.

A soldier fights to do his job, then goes home and does something else until he has to fight again.

That reminds me of something Carth Onasi said in the video game, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.

That’s two Star Wars references I’ve snuck into this thread whoooo!

What every humanity was screwed from the start and unclean will all die from the diseases the government releases. See ya you pathetic shells of humanity.

What every humanity was screwed from the start and unclean will all die from the diseases the government releases. See ya you pathetic shells of humanity.
You are quite possibly the most annoying poster in this thread. STOP flaming people for having opposing views, or not understanding your arguments, it's fucking irritating, and it's ruining my reading experience of the whole thread.
Thanks.

P.S. This killed me, right here:
"Sure, if you see it that way, but I don't, you just need to stop being so mean." Post #1031 - Draconis Federation

(Seriously people like you are fucking stupid, if you want to reduce popultaion only have one child, if you want to maintain a population have two, and if you want to increase have three. Stupid idiots.)

Heh. I see you haven't gotten to advanced math yet, either.

But anyway, who said anything about population? That has nothing to do with it.

About those Dansih statistics... Here's a few facts:

This is all taken from the official Danish government statistics. This is the most valid source of anything related to marriage statistics in Denmark you will ever get. Or to put it in another way: This shit is 110% accurate.


45% Of all 30 year old women in Denmark are married. In 1971 the number was 87%

The number of single parents (men & women) has increased by 37% since 1980. As of January 1st 2005, 135.337 were single parents: 18.522 men and 116.515 women.

The danish population has increased by 5,3% since 1990.

40-44 year old men & women have the most divorces. People most frequently get devorced after 4 years of marriage.

The number of children born by women over 40 years old has increased by 400% since 1980

Danes are the european people who marries latest in life. Averages are 33,7 years old for men and 31,4 years old for women.

Both men and women marry later now than 10 years ago. In 2004 males averaged 33,7 years old against 31,5 years old in 1994 and women averaged 31,4 years old against 29,2 in 1994.

Only 1% of all children under 18 live in families with 3 generations living under the same roof (my personal speculation is this 1% is mainly immigrants but I didn't look it up)

Total number of marriages and civil unions (which is homo/bi marriages that have every bit the same rights as hetero marriages have, as per 1989), in all of Denmark as of:

january 1st, 1989: 2154482

january 1st, 2005: 2155743

Please note these numbers include people who are/were seperated but not divorced. Feel free to claim this is wrong, but I dare you to back up your claims. There are, as far as I know, no publicly available numbers on how many people are/were currently undergoing seperation.

Here's how many got married for the first time. Sadly I couldn't find data from further back than 1999.
Formerly unmarried couples, these numbers are marriages, not civil unions - No homo's or bi's included. Again this covers the entire country. Remember these are all the first time marriages of the entire listed year.

1999: 21742

2005: 23732

If you really want me to, I can further back my claim, which is: Marriage between straight people is more popular now than it was 10 years ago. The past 5 years Danish media have been talking of a "back to the roots" trend, meaning there's been a massive growth in first time marriages, corrosponding exactly with the massive growth in church weddings. I realize these numbers may not look all that different to an American, but keep in mind most things an American would consider a town has a larger population than all of Denmark.

Draconis Federation - deleted for flaming. These sorts of personal attacks against other posters are absolutely unacceptable, and it turns out you've got a history of such things.

Apologies, of course, for the alteration of this judgement and any distress that in itself may have caused; I missed prior offences while I was doing the paperwork.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Gay 'marriage' and the decay of society are intertwined if you were even reading what I was saying before, and that affects my opinion, and should affect other's opinions on the matter as well. So it was perfectly on topic.

I have attempted to argue with logic and example in history that the legalizing of public homosexuality, and therefore, the further distancing from the church's morales from the law is only speeding up the downfall of everything we know as right and wrong. As soon as we take that element out of our judicial system, it becomes even more messed up than it already is today. So much wrong in today's world and it's because of people, minorities, that claim oppression when there is simply none. Gay 'marriage' being the topic at hand that's what i've been focusing on. I'll say it again, for the type of reason a man can't go in a woman's bathroom, Gays should not be allowed a marriage, or legal binding of any kind. What they do sexually (for fun and perverse pleasure exclusively, too) is their business, but if they are not even going to have a possibility of actually reproducing, than there is no purpose in it, or the relationship itself. It does not make sense that they should be known as a couple when, biologically, they are not one... spiritually, they are not one, and yet legally, they should be one? I see no logic in this whatsoever.

It would appear i'm simply outnumbered here, and I think i've responded to everybody that was actually presenting a point worth noticing. 3 in the morning and I suppose i'll have to see how many people take potshots at me while i'm asleep. Thanks for the discussion everybody... it proved interesting.

Gay marriage and the decline of society aren't intertwined. I love how you blame all the world's problems on minorities when the greatest evils are inflicted upon the minority of any culture (See: Holocaust, slavery/lynchings, Native Americans, etc)

Gay marrage and a guy walking into a woman's bathroom are completely different things. One is an invasion of privacy the other isn't a bad thing unless you are a fundamentalist. Also you are saying that the elderly/those heteros who are infertile can't be married either because they can't produce chuldren in which case I'm sure a number of veterans who actually fought so that you could sit here and bitch about this would have something to say about being told they can't marry.

Cease trying to impose your spirituality on others! Who are YOU to say if they are bound spiritually or not? YOU are not God so quit trying to act like him. Further there are homosexual relationships among animals and so therefore they can be considered a biological couple.

Quit trying to make yourself into a martyr. Actually given some of your arguments and those last few comments I deem you Ignatius J. Reilly take that however you like.

Segregated & oppressed... Key words mate. One leading to the other. By refusing a minority the legal standing you freely give the majority you are praticing segregation.
By refusing to change the system you are oppressing the minority.

And that's really all there is to it. The religious outrage is completely misplaced. No homo or bi in his/her right mind would ever set fot in a christian church or ask for it's blessing. The laws governing marriage are there for pratical reasons. They have nothing to do with the sanctity or holyness of the union of man and wife. If there were no marriage laws, there'd be no issue. America is a somewhat free country. The citizens can freely decide they're in some sort of union, holy to themselves, a god or whatever they can come up with. Only doing so grants none of the benefits of a government sanctioned marriage. If they did, there'd be no issue.

This whole Gay Marriage thing isn't about church weddings or some inane god or other. It's about equal rights. If you believe all Americans are equal under the law then you cannot be against this. Sure, maybe you want it to be called something other than marriage because you feel the use of the word infringes on some religious institution. It's fine. Come up with a better term for it, but make sure people get equality under the law.

God/Allah/Whatever doesn't have anything to do with this what so ever. Get over yourself for a moment. Treat people like your equals.

Well said. :D

I'd like to add to my former post: The generally accepted explanation for the current state of affairs regarding marriages in all of Scandinavia is women rights.
Yea, you read that right. Women's rights have send the girls off to long educations and long work hours. That's both why people marry later and why they get kids later. Advances in medicine also has some bearing on the latter.
Anyway, if you've ever seen or participated in higher education, you'll know it's all but impossible to find time for a lover. You'll also know that even though you live off oatmeal and imaginary roastbeef, you'll accumulate massive debt. To put it in another way: Children equals dropping your education.
Young people also tend to change jobs a lot in the first 5 years after finishing their educations. Again that's neither conductive to partners, families or anything else of the sort.
People also have a lot more partners now than 20 years ago. That means people won't marry the first guy/gal who they happen to fall in love with. It also means the statistics of children born out of wedlock is meaningless. Most of these children end up with married parents. Sometimes one of them will not be the biological parent, but most of the time both will.
In study invironments today, it's normal not to plan on having children before the age of 33-36. This is because the women who are gonna have the babies simply won't have time or means to support a child before that age. Needless to say, human nature often get's the better of these women. That's the reason #1 so many children are born outside of marriage.
Claiming people don't take marriage seriously because homo's & bi's have equal rights is inane. It's not something anyone cares about. Al all. It's not a topic for debate in Scandinavia, not anywhere. Not even inside the protestant churches.

The only real homo/bi issue that's left is nazi/immigrant hatecrimes. Those are on the rise in all major cities in Scandinavia. It can be a dangerous undertaking to hold hands on a dark night in the middle of a city these days.
Thankfully the peoples of Scandinavia are generally outraged over that kind of attacks, and really, most of the homo/bi related news in Scandinavia deals with how to make Nazis and ill adjusted immigrant kids (yea it's the religion again) realize they've gone way off the deep end. Usually it ends up with public demands for harsher punishments for hate crimes.

I suppose you'll have to take my word for it, but only a very very minute minority aren't sympathetic to homo's & bi's.

But perhaps Scandinavian tolerance has something to do with better average education, independent media, more open and tolerant church, more social equality and better opportunities in life. Most of them also have a very liberal attitude towards pornography, religion and politics.

I guess you could say, the real difference is Scandinavia doesn't skrew their citizens. That kind of respect just breeds respect in turn.

It seems to me that perhaps there's misinterpretation going on here? Gay and homosexual DO mean the same thing, at least if you're talking about a guy. Perhaps by "gay" Ouachitasas means an effiminate man? Meaning he's descriminating against femme-gays, but not all gay men? *shrugs* Any descrimination is bad, but I was just wondering if that's what he meant?

If that's the case, he's not exactly "stereotyping" all gays...he's just pointing out that he doesn't like the kind of gay man who pretenses to have all the stereotypical qualities (lisps, effiminate walk, being pissy to straights, etc) *shrug* It'd be like me saying I hate those really macho men that have something to prove...I"m not hating on all men...just that type.

I just figured maybe Ouachitasas deserved someone on his side... *shrug* He seems like he's trying to be reasonable and you're all jumping down his throat, accusing him of things. Try to listen, alright people? Yes: He is a little prejudice against a certain type of homosexual man. This does not mean he is intolerant of all gay men, alright? And yes, it's quite clear he likes lesbians -.-

Thank you so very much! :D Its not so much being effiminate, I'm not a bully, but I have encountered a lot of attitude towards me and my girlfriend since we've been in San Francisco from certain types of homosexuals,(mostly very vocal types) and so I do harbor some resentments. I just did'nt know the latest label for these types. We work with gay people and if she or I objected in any way with how they act around us or to us we would be called bigots and our workplace would probably become a hostile place. I dont think that is fair. For example: when I was hired at a hotel, I was immediately approached, when I said I was straight(politely mind you) I got some attitude and endless lude remarks, but I just let them roll off and went about my business, but when my girlfriend was hired and they found out we were dating they treated her like shit. They made smartass remarks as to where a womans place is and other not so subtle personal attacks, they said something amongst themselves that we overheard about how I was pussywhipped when we were present. They even tried to do this "Twinkle, Twinkle, Faiy Dust :gundge: act to turn me gay!? lol. Cuz I just had to be. :confused: That was'nt appropriate for the workplace or anyplace else. So we quit before I got myself arrested. :mp5:
So here I am trying to decide where to stand. :)

PS I dont like those macho guys either. :) And lesibians and muffins rock! :fluffle:

If your only problem with us is those of us who happen to express themselves in more open, flambouyant ways then I don't see what your problem with same-sex marriage is. It is a social issue that has nothing to do with how some of us behave. We just want to be able to have what heterosexual couples have.

I am still out on that one.

As for your last paragraph I definitely did not follow your train of thought there. Maybe you just need to re-read what I wrote. "If I'm gay then I surely do have issues"?..Yes, as I said above, I'm gay(a word much easier to say and type than homosexual)..no..I do not have any issues..none that pertain to my being gay at least.

Sorry, I must have. Apparently I was wrong. I've just had a few rough days

and I'm totally new to forum debates :D

First of all, I want you all to know that I know that not all Christians out there are against outlawing gay marriage, or even think being gay is wrong (and for that, I think you're awesome). Any time I refer to Christians, I am not including you; just the intolerant Christians. :)

3) I am not a religious person, and my boyfriend is an athiest. When we get married, we do not plan to do so in a church, and we will not be married in the eyes of your God. Do you feel comfortable with me telling people that we're "married?" (I'm a girl, by the way.)

No
Nothing more to say to that than I'm sorry you're not comfortable with that, but there's nothing you can do about it.

4) Please dispute the fact that marriage existed before Christianity. I have yet to see this done.

Alright, I will. It was still a religious ceremony, not necessarily christian, but religious. The term 'marriage' comes from Old French, and has christian background to it. That's all.
Okay, I should have specified. I'm not talking about the origins of the word "marriage." I'm referring to the act of marriage, or the institution.

This is from an article on the origins of marriage:

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Did this change the nature of marriage?
Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.

When did love enter the picture?
Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”

Did love change marriage?
It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

How did this tradition change?
Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”

Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

5) Your church will never be forced to marry couples it doesn't want to, thanks to the freedom of religion. Keeping that in mind, please tell me how you will be affected by gay couples enjoying legal rights that come with a legally recognized marriage. And use specifics.

I've dealt with this in other posts. The insult that it presents using a christian word and the fact that something so much against the majority can be legally EQUAL is against my own religion. It is insulting. There need to be certain lines that we cannot cross, or soon there will cases saying sane and people legally insane are completely equal, and suddenly crimes will be gotten away with all across the country. There need to be limits.
These are not valid examples, and you know it. You spouting self-righteous religious crap insults me, but I'm not about to try and outlaw it. And as for your second "example," crimes are crimes for a reason; they infringe on others' rights. You do not have a right not to be insulted, therefore two homosexuals getting married in the eyes of the LAW do not infringe on your's or anybody's rights in any way, shape, or form. You just don't like it, so you don't want it to happen.

I'm saying the VALUES, the positive values the church has given society and that HAD been working for us until the minorities had to try and mess everything up. I don't wish harm upon them, or wish them to leave...necessarily, however the problem is, if what they want angers the majority of people than they should not be able to "have it". Gay 'marriage' for example...
First of all, not all values come from the Christian church. You don't have to be religious to know that murder and rape are wrong. Second, you say that if what the minority wants angers the majority, they shouldn't be able to have it. Let's see:

[Gay] people want equal rights and the freedom to [marry whom they chose], but the [Christian] majority is angered by this. Therefore, [gay] people should not be granted equal rights, and not be allowed to [marry whom they choose].

Well, what if the government years ago felt the same way? Let's give them your logic:

[Black] people want equal rights and the freedom to [vote], but the [white] majority is angered by this. Therefore, [black] people should not be granted equal rights, and not be allowed to [vote].

Please tell me you're smart enough to see the flaw in that argument.

First off, i'm not trying to 'bait' anybody into flaming me, nor am I trying to anger anybody intentionally. It happens when different points of view come into contact, if you're taking this personally than perhaps you have an idea of how I feel about gay 'marriage'. I take it personally that something against my religion so much could even be considered to be legally and socially acceptable. The very idea is repulsive.
I'm repulsed by obese, sweaty men in dirty white tank tops out in public, but I don't think they should have to either conform or stay indoors. DON'T DWELL ON IT; YOU'LL BE MUCH HAPPIER.

Also, as a general statement, i'm sick of all of you comparing slavery to gay 'marriage'. Tell me when a white southern man enslaves a homosexual and ... oh I find no need to go on about this. I think you get the point. They do NOT compare to any degree. Slavery and gay 'marriage' are two completely different matters. Some slaveowners found the words of the bible gave 'blessing' to slavery, however some homosexuals find that the words of the bible say that gay 'marriage' is acceptable. Both of which are and were wrong. I think i've beaten that to death... that's all I have to say about that.
The point is NOT that slavery and descriminating against gay people are one and the same. The point is that you keep spouting the same logic that people back then used when they opposed the freeing of the slaves and later, the granting blacks/women of equal rights. If our government had also seen that logic, things would not have changed for BETTER the way they did.

First off i'd like to thank you for your kind tone. However, the values of my religion should be implemented into the law not just in my religious institutions. History has shown us, even if you want to go as extreme as during the Middle Ages, that when religious values have a place in society (unfortunately due to people like i've been arguing with, they are losing that place) order is above all and justice is served completely and not halfway.
Which religious values are you referring to? Like I mentioned above, not all "values" are necessarily derived from religion. The no-brainers like murder, rape, theft, etc... don't need to be delivered by a devine being.

It seems to me that laws that are completely sourced from religion (the ones that say it's "wrong" to do something, even though it doesn't affect anyone else - homosexuality, practicing witchcraft, etc...) are fueled by emotion, so people in charge can lose sight of reason, causing bad things to happen. (Witch burning, Spanish Inquisition, banning rights for no legitimate reason, etc....)

Laws based on logic (such-and-such infringes on so-and-so's right to such-and-such; therefore it should be illegal) are harder to corrupt with human emotion.

Not that I'm saying human compassion (again, something that does not need religion in order to exist) has no place in government. But laws based solely on religious ideals are dangerous.

But through it all there is always a truth that society clings on to. Nobody would DARE say that, in fact, the bible says slavery was correct. That's because the law says slavery has been outlawed. As such, it should outlaw homosexual 'marriage.' This would assure that society would view the bible's interpretation as against gay 'marriage' and not for it, much in the same way making laws against slavery solidified the view that the bible is in fact against slavery.
So are you saying that you want the government to outlaw homosexual marriage just so your fellow Bible thumpers will be convinced that the Bible is against it? That's preaching to the choir!

As soon as a man with a torch comes to a gay person's house and shoots them to death and is acquited because he claims that he had Majority rights, you can claim Tyranny of the Majority. We are still ALLOWING them to live here, and do their ... business legally. Making all of us watch, and know about it, however, is insulting.
Oh, how big of you, allowing the "different" people to live here. What a sacrifice you've made! :rolleyes:

You are one of the most selfish people I've come across. You think your self-proclaimed "right" to avoid being insulted outweighs gays' rights to enjoy the same legal benefits that straight people do? This isn't just about tax breaks or financial benefits (even though they're good examples). This is about them being able to see their partners in the hospital on their death bed, and being able to make important medical decisions if the need arises. This is about children being able to stay with their mom/dad if their other mom/dad who was their legal guardian dies.

You have NO RIGHT to put your misguided sensibilities over others' rights to pursue happiness, which IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE WAY YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE.

Pathetic. Let's say a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman thought they were 'in love' ? Should they enjoy legal benefits of commitment?
Of course not. Because, in my opinion, true love can't exist between a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman, and by that I mean they can't even reproduce or perform any of the NATURAL functions that a couple would perform.

Someone else already tore apart this comparison for me, but I wanted to clarify your definition of "true love." Are you saying that you can't honestly say that you love somebody unless you can reproduce? So... Sterile/elderly couples don't really love each other in your opinion?

I'm assuming you didn't mean to word it that way; at least, I hope you didn't.

And as for love between a 5 year old boy and 79 year old woman, it can exist; that doesn't make it right, since a child that young has not fully developed, and isn't capable of consenting. Sexual love at that age will cause him harm for the future; that's what makes that bad. No comparison to two consenting, adult males or females loving each other that way.

Now, Incidentally... that sounds like another 'couple' example that I could think of.
Since you brought up the "natural" argument, I will repeat what I posted earlier. It has been proven that gay male brains are different than those of straight males, and comparable to those of straight females. There is a biological difference, and the only way this difference could be deemed as "unnatural" is if you tried to tell me that they paid to have some sort of cosmetic brain surgery done on them to make them gay.

Also, if you've ever been around groups of animals, you must have witnessed at least one homosexual act. If you need documented proof, research the gay penquins that have been studied in zoos. Some gay penguins consistently chose same-sex mates, despite the fact that they weren't producing offspring.

Gay 'marriage' and the decay of society are intertwined if you were even reading what I was saying before, and that affects my opinion, and should affect other's opinions on the matter as well. So it was perfectly on topic.
Gay people aren't going to stop being gay if people like you succeed in outlawing gay marriage. They are still going to have sex together, still hold hands in public, and still fight for their rights which should have been granted in the first place.

Allowing consenting adults to commit to a monogomous relationship while enjoying legal benefits linked to that relationship is not going to contribute to the "decay" of society. You know what does? People like you who are afraid of change. You try to keep out-dated "values" in effect until they rot and cause divided countries, promoting hate and intolerance.

Things change; GET OVER IT. We need to be able to change accordingly, or we'll risk becoming so self-absorbed that we'll lose all reality.

I have attempted to argue with logic and example in history that the legalizing of public homosexuality, and therefore, the further distancing from the church's morales from the law is only speeding up the downfall of everything we know as right and wrong.
Again, everything YOU know. Not everybody views homosexuality as wrong, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have equal rights. Granting them such doesn't affect you. What if it turned out that being gay wasn't wrong in the eyes of your God? Would you admit that you were wrong, or would you keep judging them? Without your religious reasoning, your argument that "gay is wrong" has no validity.

So much wrong in today's world and it's because of people, minorities, that claim oppression when there is simply none.
Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'pre-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind :

How is the Christian majority keeping gays from getting married not oppression?! There's no reason for you to object to it other than the fact that it's against your beliefs, but you do; that makes it cruel.

Also, what are the things that are wrong in the world that you're talking about?

Gay 'marriage' being the topic at hand that's what i've been focusing on. I'll say it again, for the type of reason a man can't go in a woman's bathroom, Gays should not be allowed a marriage, or legal binding of any kind.
Uh, how does gender privacy compare to gay rights? :confused:

What they do sexually (for fun and perverse pleasure exclusively, too) is their business, but if they are not even going to have a possibility of actually reproducing, than there is no purpose in it, or the relationship itself. It does not make sense that they should be known as a couple when, biologically, they are not one... spiritually, they are not one, and yet legally, they should be one? I see no logic in this whatsoever.
Is your logic that in order to be called a couple, two people need to have a possibility of reproducing? So do you think that sterile people shouldn't be able to get married?

It would appear i'm simply outnumbered here, and I think i've responded to everybody that was actually presenting a point worth noticing.
Well that means that in the context of this forum, you are a minority. By your logic (which as you can see I've quoted above), you and your like need to accept our reasoning and abide by it while posting. :p

Magical Ponies could you please edit your post and add the text "Holy words of Magical Ponies " somewhere? Because I want to adobt you as my new idol, and I want some holy scripture I can hit people over the head with as well :)

What is PWNed?



It's a nerdy guy term from online games. I had really hoped that the 1337 r0xX0R-type jargon would never make it here, but, sadly, it did :(

Wow....this thread really ballooned overnight....and there's lots of flaming....sheesh....

First of all, I want you all to know that I know that not all Christians out there are against outlawing gay marriage, or even think being gay is wrong (and for that, I think you're awesome). Any time I refer to Christians, I am not including you; just the intolerant Christians. :)


Nothing more to say to that than I'm sorry you're not comfortable with that, but there's nothing you can do about it.


Okay, I should have specified. I'm not talking about the origins of the word "marriage." I'm referring to the act of marriage, or the institution.

This is from an article on the origins of marriage:

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Did this change the nature of marriage?
Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.

When did love enter the picture?
Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”

Did love change marriage?
It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

How did this tradition change?
Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”

Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”


These are not valid examples, and you know it. You spouting self-righteous religious crap insults me, but I'm not about to try and outlaw it. And as for your second "example," crimes are crimes for a reason; they infringe on others' rights. You do not have a right not to be insulted, therefore two homosexuals getting married in the eyes of the LAW do not infringe on your's or anybody's rights in any way, shape, or form. You just don't like it, so you don't want it to happen.


First of all, not all values come from the Christian church. You don't have to be religious to know that murder and rape are wrong. Second, you say that if what the minority wants angers the majority, they shouldn't be able to have it. Let's see:

[Gay] people want equal rights and the freedom to [marry whom they chose], but the [Christian] majority is angered by this. Therefore, [gay] people should not be granted equal rights, and not be allowed to [marry whom they choose].

Well, what if the government years ago felt the same way? Let's give them your logic:

[Black] people want equal rights and the freedom to [vote], but the [white] majority is angered by this. Therefore, [black] people should not be granted equal rights, and not be allowed to [vote].

Please tell me you're smart enough to see the flaw in that argument.


I'm repulsed by obese, sweaty men in dirty white tank tops out in public, but I don't think they should have to either conform or stay indoors. DON'T DWELL ON IT; YOU'LL BE MUCH HAPPIER.


The point is NOT that slavery and descriminating against gay people are one and the same. The point is that you keep spouting the same logic that people back then used when they opposed the freeing of the slaves and later, the granting blacks/women of equal rights. If our government had also seen that logic, things would not have changed for BETTER the way they did.


Which religious values are you referring to? Like I mentioned above, not all "values" are necessarily derived from religion. The no-brainers like murder, rape, theft, etc... don't need to be delivered by a devine being.

It seems to me that laws that are completely sourced from religion (the ones that say it's "wrong" to do something, even though it doesn't affect anyone else - homosexuality, practicing witchcraft, etc...) are fueled by emotion, so people in charge can lose sight of reason, causing bad things to happen. (Witch burning, Spanish Inquisition, banning rights for no legitimate reason, etc....)

Laws based on logic (such-and-such infringes on so-and-so's right to such-and-such; therefore it should be illegal) are harder to corrupt with human emotion.

Not that I'm saying human compassion (again, something that does not need religion in order to exist) has no place in government. But laws based solely on religious ideals are dangerous.


So are you saying that you want the government to outlaw homosexual marriage just so your fellow Bible thumpers will be convinced that the Bible is against it? That's preaching to the choir!


Oh, how big of you, allowing the "different" people to live here. What a sacrifice you've made! :rolleyes:

You are one of the most selfish people I've come across. You think your self-proclaimed "right" to avoid being insulted outweighs gays' rights to enjoy the same legal benefits that straight people do? This isn't just about tax breaks or financial benefits (even though they're good examples). This is about them being able to see their partners in the hospital on their death bed, and being able to make important medical decisions if the need arises. This is about children being able to stay with their mom/dad if their other mom/dad who was their legal guardian dies.

You have NO RIGHT to put your misguided sensibilities over others' rights to pursue happiness, which IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE WAY YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE.



Someone else already tore apart this comparison for me, but I wanted to clarify your definition of "true love." Are you saying that you can't honestly say that you love somebody unless you can reproduce? So... Sterile/elderly couples don't really love each other in your opinion?

I'm assuming you didn't mean to word it that way; at least, I hope you didn't.

And as for love between a 5 year old boy and 79 year old woman, it can exist; that doesn't make it right, since a child that young has not fully developed, and isn't capable of consenting. Sexual love at that age will cause him harm for the future; that's what makes that bad. No comparison to two consenting, adult males or females loving each other that way.


Since you brought up the "natural" argument, I will repeat what I posted earlier. It has been proven that gay male brains are different than those of straight males, and comparable to those of straight females. There is a biological difference, and the only way this difference could be deemed as "unnatural" is if you tried to tell me that they paid to have some sort of cosmetic brain surgery done on them to make them gay.

Also, if you've ever been around groups of animals, you must have witnessed at least one homosexual act. If you need documented proof, research the gay penquins that have been studied in zoos. Some gay penguins consistently chose same-sex mates, despite the fact that they weren't producing offspring.


Gay people aren't going to stop being gay if people like you succeed in outlawing gay marriage. They are still going to have sex together, still hold hands in public, and still fight for their rights which should have been granted in the first place.

Allowing consenting adults to commit to a monogomous relationship while enjoying legal benefits linked to that relationship is not going to contribute to the "decay" of society. You know what does? People like you who are afraid of change. You try to keep out-dated "values" in effect until they rot and cause divided countries, promoting hate and intolerance.

Things change; GET OVER IT. We need to be able to change accordingly, or we'll risk becoming so self-absorbed that we'll lose all reality.


Again, everything YOU know. Not everybody views homosexuality as wrong, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have equal rights. Granting them such doesn't affect you. What if it turned out that being gay wasn't wrong in the eyes of your God? Would you admit that you were wrong, or would you keep judging them? Without your religious reasoning, your argument that "gay is wrong" has no validity.


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'pre-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind :

How is the Christian majority keeping gays from getting married not oppression?! There's no reason for you to object to it other than the fact that it's against your beliefs, but you do; that makes it cruel.

Also, what are the things that are wrong in the world that you're talking about?


Uh, how does gender privacy compare to gay rights? :confused:


Is your logic that in order to be called a couple, two people need to have a possibility of reproducing? So do you think that sterile people shouldn't be able to get married?


Well that means that in the context of this forum, you are a minority. By your logic (which as you can see I've quoted above), you and your like need to accept our reasoning and abide by it while posting. :p
You absolutly deserve a :fluffle:

I'm saying the VALUES, the positive values the church has given society and that HAD been working for us until the minorities had to try and mess everything up. I don't wish harm upon them, or wish them to leave...necessarily, however the problem is, if what they want angers the majority of people than they should not be able to "have it". Gay 'marriage' for example...

Oh, but it is PERFECTLY FINE....if what YOU want ANGERS US...I get it.

In other words, your attitude is basically, "I got mine...FUCK YOU." I understand now.

Oh, but it is PERFECTLY FINE....if what YOU want ANGERS US...I get it.

In other words, your attitude is basically, "I got mine...FUCK YOU." I understand now.



Oh great, she woke up....*sigh* I guess I'll go back to bed for now :rolleyes:

"in the christian religion"
You Americans, to repeat again, have seperation of church and state.

Chances are the gay people getting married aren't part of your brand of christian religion. Therefore, why does it matter to you if they are having children or not?

It matters to them because they want to FORCE everyone to subscribe to THEIR brand of Christianity...whether or not we believe in it...whether or not we want to...whether or not it is beneficial to us.

See, they really believe themselves superior to all others, and that they...and thay alone...know what is best for everyone else...and they, themselves, respond best to authoritarian figures, and so they attempt to project that onto others.

See, THEY need authoritarianism to "stay good" and so they think the rest of us need it too. they haven't considered that many of us are capable of making our own choices, and being good, without an authoritarian figure breathing down our necks to "be good."

Why oh why did you have to quote that entire post?

Majority means that decisions affect my group more than any of you, and in so, we should be considered above all of you.

Any of me? You mean a white female Christian in a straight long-term relationship? I am somehow the minority now? Wow, when did that happen?

Secondly, dealing with economy has given us many benefits, however i'm referring to the SOCIAL issues, if you understand me correctly... which apparently you either don't want to or simply are unable to.

And you are making things up to support your bigotry. Very Christ-like, that /sarcasm.

First off, i'm not trying to 'bait' anybody into flaming me, nor am I trying to anger anybody intentionally. It happens when different points of view come into contact, if you're taking this personally than perhaps you have an idea of how I feel about gay 'marriage'. I take it personally that something against my religion so much could even be considered to be legally and socially acceptable. The very idea is repulsive.

Also, as a general statement, i'm sick of all of you comparing slavery to gay 'marriage'. Tell me when a white southern man enslaves a homosexual and ... oh I find no need to go on about this. I think you get the point. They do NOT compare to any degree. Slavery and gay 'marriage' are two completely different matters. Some slaveowners found the words of the bible gave 'blessing' to slavery, however some homosexuals find that the words of the bible say that gay 'marriage' is acceptable. Both of which are and were wrong. I think i've beaten that to death... that's all I have to say about that.

Now let's see who else has quoted me...


Well, you're baiting ME. and you're PISSING ME OFF!!

You are attempting to justify why I, as a minority...should have less rights to pursuit of happiness than you. And you are using your religion to excuse your bigotry. and that pisses me off.

End of discussion.

I am not going to change your mind. You will not change mine.

All that can occur here is that you continue to piss me off more and more and more...and everntually, I am going to explode.

I have already figured out that your basic attitude is "I got mine, Fuck You!" I don't need to know any more about you than that.

Do NOT use my religion against me, or even attempt it. That I do not appreciate. There is more to Christianity than the common stereotype, so i'll just say you 'misinterpretated something' and leave it at that.


Well, then....How about YOU do NOT use YOUR religion against ME...or even attempt it. THAT I DO NOT APPRECIATE!!!!!

I'm saying the VALUES, the positive values the church has given society and that HAD been working for us until the minorities had to try and mess everything up. I don't wish harm upon them, or wish them to leave...necessarily, however the problem is, if what they want angers the majority of people than they should not be able to "have it". Gay 'marriage' for example...

Would you still believe this if you were in the minority?

What if, say, Muslims were the majority in this country? Would you submit to Sharia law?

Actually I saw it on an internet news site. But if you give me some time, I should be able to hunt down the origanal stats.

And just so you know, I'm not saying that gay marrige is bad, just that it resulted in a decrease of marrige in Amsterdam and it's neighbor the Netherlands.

Which is very incorrect. Birth rates and marriage rates in the Netherlands have been dropping for quite a while (Amsterdam is [b]in[/i] the Netherlands, btw). They were dropping before gay marriage was made legal and continued dropping (with a little less slope - the marriage one anyways) after.

Birth rates drop as countries become more industrialized. This is a known social phenomenon. And marriage rates have been dropping in the Netherlands for the most part because it is more economically advantageous to remain unmarried in the Netherlands.

First of all, I want you all to know that I know that not all Christians out there are against outlawing gay marriage, or even think being gay is wrong (and for that, I think you're awesome). Any time I refer to Christians, I am not including you; just the intolerant Christians. :)
Intolerant has such a negative connotation with it... would you allow a poisonous spider to crawl up your arm untouched? You'd flick it away, wouldn't you? Would you be called intolerant for that? It WOULD be a type of intolerance, yes. There are times where intolerance is perfectly acceptable, and indeed, the more intelligent choice. Were we 'tolerant' of Nazi soldiers slaughtering Jews? No, I don't believe we were. Should all who fought back then be known as "intolerant Christians"? I am not intolerant in general, but like everybody, I do have intolerances for something completely rediculous and harmful for society. Unfortunately due to my religion this is blown up all out of proportion, and like gay 'marriage' itself, that fact sickens me.

Nothing more to say to that than I'm sorry you're not comfortable with that, but there's nothing you can do about it.
Nothing I can do about it, but luckily ones who agree with me are in power. Therefore, i'm sorry you're not comfortable with THAT. But, thankfully, there's nothing you can do about it.

Okay, I should have specified. I'm not talking about the origins of the word "marriage." I'm referring to the act of marriage, or the institution.
Yes, I read through your nice little passage and nothing seems relevant but the last paragraph. In that, I see "Gay marriage is rare in history" and I remind myself that it should be kept that way. Nothing more to say about that at all.

These are not valid examples, and you know it. You spouting self-righteous religious crap insults me, but I'm not about to try and outlaw it. And as for your second "example," crimes are crimes for a reason; they infringe on others' rights. You do not have a right not to be insulted, therefore two homosexuals getting married in the eyes of the LAW do not infringe on your's or anybody's rights in any way, shape, or form. You just don't like it, so you don't want it to happen.
Yes, it does. It insults my religion, and my freedom to practice my religion without this sort of blatant public defiance toward certain aspects of it. I don't have a right not to be insulted, but I believe there is some "stuff" in there about me being able to choose my faith without having to worry about the basic principles of it, and it's leaders being infringed upon by the law. If and when the government makes any law that is directly against what my religion believes than it is going against many, many rights of free religion. Not to mention we are the majority, and it is especially rediculous to see the majority's rights INFRINGED upon by a minority.

First of all, not all values come from the Christian church. You don't have to be religious to know that murder and rape are wrong. Second, you say that if what the minority wants angers the majority, they shouldn't be able to have it. Let's see:

[Gay] people want equal rights and the freedom to [marry whom they chose], but the [Christian] majority is angered by this. Therefore, [gay] people should not be granted equal rights, and not be allowed to [marry whom they choose].

Well, what if the government years ago felt the same way? Let's give them your logic:

[Black] people want equal rights and the freedom to [vote], but the [white] majority is angered by this. Therefore, [black] people should not be granted equal rights, and not be allowed to [vote].

Please tell me you're smart enough to see the flaw in that argument.
Again with the slavery comparison. GAYS ARE NOT BEING BEATEN, ENSLAVED, TORTURED, FORCED TO WORK, OR CAPTURED BY ANYBODY. This arguement is flawed and apparently you aren't smart enough to see that. The day a gay is "lynched" by a mob and the police do nothing, this point will be valid, until then, I would submit that it is not relevant whatsoever.

I'm repulsed by obese, sweaty men in dirty white tank tops out in public, but I don't think they should have to either conform or stay indoors. DON'T DWELL ON IT; YOU'LL BE MUCH HAPPIER.
Does it infringe on your rights of free religion? No? Good. That's all.

The point is NOT that slavery and descriminating against gay people are one and the same. The point is that you keep spouting the same logic that people back then used when they opposed the freeing of the slaves and later, the granting blacks/women of equal rights. If our government had also seen that logic, things would not have changed for BETTER the way they did.
Blacks and women are not even comparable to gays. They are biologically ineffecient and are nature's way of thinning the population. THAT is fact. >straight< Blacks and >straight< women can reproduce, raise their children, teach them what they know, do good for the genepool. My religious arguement aside, biologically there is no reason for any of this. Science AND Religion both back this up, and that's hard to come by. Yet you would pull reasons from society. Society changes, values change... 300 years ago to have this discussion would be laughable on your part. However, 300 years ago it was still unnacceptable by the Church AND by Science to even imagine it. You do see what I mean, don't you? There is a constant in my side of the arguement where yours just happened to come up in the past 10 years. Gays can attend school, they can get jobs, they can do everything that I can do do, but like anybody else, they cannot infringe on my religious freedoms.

Which religious values are you referring to? Like I mentioned above, not all "values" are necessarily derived from religion. The no-brainers like murder, rape, theft, etc... don't need to be delivered by a devine being.

It seems to me that laws that are completely sourced from religion (the ones that say it's "wrong" to do something, even though it doesn't affect anyone else - homosexuality, practicing witchcraft, etc...) are fueled by emotion, so people in charge can lose sight of reason, causing bad things to happen. (Witch burning, Spanish Inquisition, banning rights for no legitimate reason, etc....)

Laws based on logic (such-and-such infringes on so-and-so's right to such-and-such; therefore it should be illegal) are harder to corrupt with human emotion.

Not that I'm saying human compassion (again, something that does not need religion in order to exist) has no place in government. But laws based solely on religious ideals are dangerous.
And yet they worked for thousands of years? Perhaps there was an exploited minority at times, but we have gotten past that already. Blacks are equal, other religions we have tolerance for, witches aren't burned, women have rights... we have come a long way. Indeed, we are finished. The only problem now lies in minorities waiting to upset the order that was working for about half a century. All humans already have equal natural rights, blacks, asians, whites, women, men... they have them. Homosexuals, however, are not going to be infringing on my rights anytime soon with this disgusting practice.

So are you saying that you want the government to outlaw homosexual marriage just so your fellow Bible thumpers will be convinced that the Bible is against it? That's preaching to the choir!
I'm saying that the government, and society for that matter has always been the "final sayso" on any matter. When women were inferior, the government changed it's policy and so did society's interpretation of the bible. When blacks were inferior, same thing. These were good moves. However... as long as the government maintains it's current position on things society will come to believe as I do. If a a few generations grow up under these current laws it will just be a matter of time before my 'side' vastly outnumbers your side, because of the way society works. This, I am saying, is a good thing.

Oh, how big of you, allowing the "different" people to live here. What a sacrifice you've made! :rolleyes:
Sarcasm. Great.

You are one of the most selfish people I've come across. You think your self-proclaimed "right" to avoid being insulted outweighs gays' rights to enjoy the same legal benefits that straight people do? This isn't just about tax breaks or financial benefits (even though they're good examples). This is about them being able to see their partners in the hospital on their death bed, and being able to make important medical decisions if the need arises. This is about children being able to stay with their mom/dad if their other mom/dad who was their legal guardian dies.

You have NO RIGHT to put your misguided sensibilities over others' rights to pursue happiness, which IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE WAY YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE.
I believe i've already shown you how it 'affects my life' in that it violates certain religious freedoms, in my opinion. If we outlawed "leaving the house on sundays", there would be some angry christians... likewise, we have this situation. Unfortunately for you, and for all of your side, we are the, I say again, majority. We are the ones who appoint our representatives, and therefore it is my side that decides the laws.

Someone else already tore apart this comparison for me, but I wanted to clarify your definition of "true love." Are you saying that you can't honestly say that you love somebody unless you can reproduce? So... Sterile/elderly couples don't really love each other in your opinion?

I'm assuming you didn't mean to word it that way; at least, I hope you didn't.

And as for love between a 5 year old boy and 79 year old woman, it can exist; that doesn't make it right, since a child that young has not fully developed, and isn't capable of consenting. Sexual love at that age will cause him harm for the future; that's what makes that bad. No comparison to two consenting, adult males or females loving each other that way.
I don't believe it's been 'tore apart' yet, but I applaud you for trying. Fine then, let's say they're ten. The point wasn't to get technical and whine about how it would be damaging to engage in sexual activity, the point is to say that, you like all who aren't lying, don't think they should be able to get into a legal commitment. And there you have my point, if gays can have a 'marriage' than why can't they? You would cry about me discriminating and yet you would discriminate yourself based on age. It's because 'intolerance' CAN be used with a good reason at times, isn't it? Oh, why yes, it is. In both the 5 / 79 year old case and in the gay 'marriage' case, it is.

Since you brought up the "natural" argument, I will repeat what I posted earlier. It has been proven that gay male brains are different than those of straight males, and comparable to those of straight females. There is a biological difference, and the only way this difference could be deemed as "unnatural" is if you tried to tell me that they paid to have some sort of cosmetic brain surgery done on them to make them gay.

Also, if you've ever been around groups of animals, you must have witnessed at least one homosexual act. If you need documented proof, research the gay penquins that have been studied in zoos. Some gay penguins consistently chose same-sex mates, despite the fact that they weren't producing offspring.
I'd rather not read about gay penguins, but that's just me. Yes, nature is doing what it can to control the out-of-control population spike that is occurring, now isn't it? Gays are biologically inefficient, some by choice, some by nature. Either way, it still stands that they don't perform the entire PURPOSE of life, that is, to reproduce. Completely biologically speaking, people are born to have sex, to pass on their genes, to increase the genepool, to better the chances of survival for the species. Do they do this? No.

Gay people aren't going to stop being gay if people like you succeed in outlawing gay marriage. They are still going to have sex together, still hold hands in public, and still fight for their rights which should have been granted in the first place.

Allowing consenting adults to commit to a monogomous relationship while enjoying legal benefits linked to that relationship is not going to contribute to the "decay" of society. You know what does? People like you who are afraid of change. You try to keep out-dated "values" in effect until they rot and cause divided countries, promoting hate and intolerance.

Things change; GET OVER IT. We need to be able to change accordingly, or we'll risk becoming so self-absorbed that we'll lose all reality.
Yes they will still do it for awhile, but the outlawing of the gay marriage will be a huge victory for my side of things, and perhaps start us down a road that we should have been on in the first place. History would prove you wrong on your second point. My "out-dated" views were the things that kept peace for hundreds of years in numerous situations, social order was established by these "out-dated" views, and you woud mess with them purely to serve your own selfish WANTS, not needs, WANTS. It is things like gay 'marriage' that contribute to the decay of society, and you need to GET OVER the fact that some of us aren't willing to let this happen. Things do change, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Sometimes we must change with it (black / women's rights) sometimes we must remain firm on where we stand because we see that without CONSTANTS in society, we are just a bunch of aimless liberals changing to every whim of every individual.

Again, everything YOU know. Not everybody views homosexuality as wrong, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have equal rights. Granting them such doesn't affect you. What if it turned out that being gay wasn't wrong in the eyes of your God? Would you admit that you were wrong, or would you keep judging them? Without your religious reasoning, your argument that "gay is wrong" has no validity.


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'pre-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind :

How is the Christian majority keeping gays from getting married not oppression?! There's no reason for you to object to it other than the fact that it's against your beliefs, but you do; that makes it cruel.

Also, what are the things that are wrong in the world that you're talking about?
I've dealt with both your claim that I have nothing but religion to back up my arguement, and the rest of that garbage up above. As for what is wrong in the world... haha. Celebraties sexually abusing small boys, terrorist preying on convoys of female soldiers, three dead boys being found in a trunk of a car in New Jersey, Kidnappings with dead bodies being found a week later in Florida, ... The list goes on. The fact is, if you DIDN'T see anything wrong in the world than you are the confused one.

Uh, how does gender privacy compare to gay rights? :confused:
Oh... perhaps that example was too deep for you. My apologies. Sometimes things are just plain OBVIOUS, like when men shouldn't walk into women's restrooms, that's what I was intending to say. Sorry you couldn't understand that... i'll simplify by comparisons in the future.

Is your logic that in order to be called a couple, two people need to have a possibility of reproducing? So do you think that sterile people shouldn't be able to get married?
Sterile people at least have a certain correctness about them that gay people do not have. A sterile man marries a fertile woman, it is a tragic situation, however at least they are joined as nature, and as God intended it to be. A gay couple, again, is against both of these.

Well that means that in the context of this forum, you are a minority. By your logic (which as you can see I've quoted above), you and your like need to accept our reasoning and abide by it while posting. :p
In the forum, perhaps, I am the minority. However I do enjoy a good... discussion with anybody, and especially on something I believe so passionately about. However, my logic applies to society in general not neccessarily to a forum... and I would have assumed that you figured that out, but apparently not. So let's just have this little paragraph to clear that up, hm?

As soon as a man with a torch comes to a gay person's house and shoots them to death and is acquited because he claims that he had Majority rights, you can claim Tyranny of the Majority. We are still ALLOWING them to live here, and do their ... business legally. Making all of us watch, and know about it, however, is insulting.

But it ISN'T insulting, I suppose, for me to have to watch the hetero couple playing tonsil-hockey on the city bus??

Don't worry, I completely understand. See, I worked at a place once, where, every morning, a husband would drop off his wife...and the two of them would stand outside the car and just about suck each other's faces off, and swallow each other's tongues.

That was just perfectly fine.

But the day my partner came to see me for lunch...and I gave my partner a quick, chaste peck on the cheek as a goodbye, it was the talk of the office for the whole freaking day!! And my boss had a conniption about it to me. Not about the fact that I had kissed my partner...but that everyone else was reacting as they were. And it was somehow MY fault that other people were reacting...and I was supposed to prevent them from reacting.

what sort of shit is that??

Oh, but I understand. You guys, because you're the majority...can shove your shit in everyone else's face, and can offend, gross out, and sicken anyone YOU want, because you're King Farouk...but we're supposed to sit down and shut up about that, aren't we??

Your "superiority" is to go completely unchallenged. You...and your ego...simply cannot stand the idea that you are not superior...and you cannot stand the concept that maybe you should NOT be considered above all others.

Perhaps you should realize that it is all part of the same problem, the social 'unrest' that you minorities cause when you cause such a big problem purely because under the constitution you are equal.

More bigotry. *shakes head* Anyone who fights for equality must be a minority, right? It's not like there were any white people in the civil rights movement marching alongside leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., right?

To say that minorities have EQUAL rights as majorities, would be communism. Majorities rightfully have a power of the minority that, even when the individuals are equal, you must respect.

So the Founding Fathers were communist? Thats not one I've heard before....

Judging and recognizing potential threats to the rights to MY religion are two different matters. Homosexuality is not acceptable in the eyes of oh-so-many christians, and yet you would have them legally getting 'married'? That is incorrect, and even moreso because, we have the political power that the majority should enjoy in any form of fair government and no minority should be allowed to take that away.
Ah, so everything should be to YOUR benefit...even at the expense and misery of those who are disenfrachised by you?

I get it. More of the "I got mine, fuck you" attitude showing.

Ah, so everything should be to YOUR benefit...even at the expense and misery of those who are disenfrachised by you?


Way to apply the double-standard. Have you ever thought that, hmm, maybe WE are miserable at seeing sin permeate every aspect of society? I'm sorry, but, as a citizen with the right to vote, I'm going to fight your secular agenda as long as you try to force me to recognize your way of life as "acceptable".

Pathetic. Let's say a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman thought they were 'in love' ? Should they enjoy legal benefits of commitment?

Of course not. Because, in my opinion, true love can't exist between a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman, and by that I mean they can't even reproduce or perform any of the NATURAL functions that a couple would perform.

Now, Incidentally... that sounds like another 'couple' example that I could think of.

You are comparing apples to oranges and you know it.

you are dragging a red herring across the path of the argument and it won't work.

A five-year-old is NOT of the age of consent, and you damn well know it.

Way to apply the double-standard. Have you ever thought that, hmm, maybe WE are miserable at seeing sin permeate every aspect of society? I'm sorry, but, as a citizen with the right to vote, I'm going to fight your secular agenda as long as you try to force me to recognize your way of life as "acceptable".
Your comfort does not trump equal rights sorry

But it ISN'T insulting, I suppose, for me to have to watch the hetero couple playing tonsil-hockey on the city bus??

Don't worry, I completely understand. See, I worked at a place once, where, every morning, a husband would drop off his wife...and the two of them would stand outside the car and just about suck each other's faces off, and swallow each other's tongues.

That was just perfectly fine.



Oh no it isn't...

Do NOT use my religion against me, or even attempt it. That I do not appreciate. There is more to Christianity than the common stereotype, so i'll just say you 'misinterpretated something' and leave it at that.

Good to know that you are Christ himself, and thus infallible on matters of what is and is not Christianity.

Of course, Neo R. had already claimed that title. Now I'm confused.

Oh no it isn't...
And where in the bible does it say kissing in public is not alright

Good to know that you are Christ himself, and thus infallible on matters of what is and is not Christianity.

Of course, Neo R. had already claimed that title. Now I'm confused.

There is only one way to settle this. You bring the Coliseum I'll bring the lions? :p

There is only one way to settle this. You bring the Coliseum I'll bring the lions? :p
Sure you take the easy part :p

Well although your obvious maturity makes me want to listen, I don't think so. Anybody of my faith I would glady have them talk to me about christian values, however, much in the same way I wouldn't pretend to know how a member of the Jewish faith feels on a matter, I don't like when atheists or a follower of any other religion pretend to know how a christian 'should' feel on something.

Of course, you assume that anyone who disagrees with you in any way must be an atheist or another religion, even when they have explicitly stated otherwise. After all, it simply isn't possible for a Christian to disagree with you - you're infallible! Oh, wait...

No I'm saying that gay marriage would be between two legaly consenting adults. Love can exist between everybody as Jesus loves everyone, remember that concept?


Nah. Eskertania's Jesus don't love everyone. HIS Jesus hates everyone who isn't EXACTLY LIKE HIM!!

Haven't you figured out these dominionists yet?

And where in the bible does it say kissing in public is not alright

It doesn't. So?

It doesn't say you have to brush your teeth every day, but I do it...

It's just indecent to French-kiss in public. It makes poor, single people like me envious and hurts my feelings too. :(






J/k ;)

Sure you take the easy part :p

Fine I'll bring the lions, Dem can pay for the air fare to the Roman Coliseum. You got bringing the chips though.

The statistics prove other wise, but I don't care, I'm American.

No, they don't. The main reason that marriage rates have been declining, and continue to decline, in places like the Netherlands is the simple fact that their government has made it less economically advantageous to be married. As a general rule, people who are unmarried have it easier - and thus stay unmarried.

Now, if you were to poll the number of long-term relationships in the Netherlands, you would probably find that their number has changed little.

It doesn't. So?

It doesn't say you have to brush your teeth every day, but I do it...

It's just indecent to French-kiss in public. It makes poor, single people like me envious and hurts my feelings too. :(






J/k ;)
Fair enough lol ... and personaly I dont like kissing my (gf right now) in public either I just think it is a respect thing not something that can or should be enforced

Actually, the opposite tends to be true. People are usually more bigoted in an impersonal sense, and less in a personal sense. Such as, a person who is generally racist might still have a friend who is of another race, and exempt that person from the idea they have of that race. And a lot of homophobic people have a family member who is gay. In fact, YOU probably have a family member who is gay.

Case in point: Dick Cheney and his gay daughter...he's a homophobe when it comes to politics, but he hasn't kicked his daughter out of the fold now has he?

Exactly. My own mother is a beautiful example of this. She is notably uncomfortable around many of my friends...but she loves and accepts me.

My mother accepts my friends, too...and she will allow me to have them over to the house. But I can still feel the undercurrent of tension when they do.

Good to know that you are Christ himself, and thus infallible on matters of what is and is not Christianity.

Of course, Neo R. had already claimed that title. Now I'm confused. Believe it or not, there is an NSer (who does not go on the forums), and everbody says he's going to be the next Pope. Perhaps he should take up this mantle?

Fine I'll bring the lions, Dem can pay for the air fare to the Roman Coliseum. You got bringing the chips though.
MMMM chips :p

Ill make sure not to bring any taco dip though ... lions might like the smell too much

Fair enough lol ... and personaly I dont like kissing my (gf right now) in public either I just think it is a respect thing not something that can or should be enforced

oogle! it can be a guy? ;)

I remember that concept, yes. However...

To limit legally binding 'marriage's to adults would surely be an infringement on the rights of all 5 year old / 79 year old couples out there! We can't let that happen in America, now can we? We'd all be bigots and probably be accused of approving slavery.

Oh, quit setting up ridiculaous straw men to attempt to "prove" your point.

Why don't you just come out and SAY you are a bigot and a homophobe? We all already know you are. Your words confirm it.

I'd have more respect for you, Eskertania, if you'd just come out and be open and honest about your homophobia and bigotry. I'd still despise you for it...but I'd at least respect you for having the guts to finally admit what the rest of us already know.

Pathetic. Let's say a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman thought they were 'in love' ? Should they enjoy legal benefits of commitment?

Five year olds are incapable of informed consent.

Have fun with that strawman, however.

oogle! it can be a guy? ;)
You mean can I have a relationship with a guy? yes
or girl

Girl right now :) (well for the last 2 years but yeah ...)

You mean can I have a relationship with a guy? yes
or girl

Girl right now :) (well for the last 2 years but yeah ...)

teeheehee....

Not really.
5 year olds will age, and come of a consenting age. Then be allowed to marry.

Although an argument is starting to take form. This could lead to the (possibly valid) argument that homosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed, unless one individual is willing to have a sex change.

Nice try. But even THAT wouldn't work out. Look up the case "Littleton vs. Prange" in the 4th Circuit Court of Texas, circa 1999.

In that case, it was ruled that Christie Littleton, who had been married to Johnathan Littleton...was in fact, in an illegal same-sex marriage, because Chriostie's sex-change did not make her a woman...it made her a "man with a vagina."

she therefore lost any and all standing in her lawsuit against Prange, a medical doctor who had killed Johnathan with gross medical malpractice, giving Johnathan medicines that were contraindicated by his condition.

But Prange got away with it, simply because Christie was a transsexual...and thus, according to the eyes of that court...was a vaginaed male.

On the other hand...
You might look up the case of JT vs MT, from New Jersey, circa 1976...in which a man divorced a woman after finding out she was transsexual...and he was ordered to pay alimony and otherwise support her as his ex-wife...SHE was actually considered by THAT court...to be a woman, as her surgery was already a fait accompli.

Christie Littleton's was, as well...but the court did not see it the same way.

You might also look up Gardiner Vs. I think it was Evans...in Kansas. In that case, the transsexual, Gardiner (J'Noel Gardiner) was also declared legally a man, and thus in an illegal same-sex marriage.

Now, ask me why I am so familiar with transsexual case law??

Remember I said, earlier back, I'd studied Constitutional Law? Well, I have. And I have a particular interest in transsexual case law. You may be able to guess WHY I have an interest in this area.

I didn't say that, I said that gay marriage caused a decrease in in marriage birth rates in Scandinavia.

And it was a very incorrect and misinformed thing for you to say.

Just because "A" happend around the same time "B" happened...it does not follow that "A" CAUSED "B."

Before you can make such a statement you need to PROVE a causal relationship between A and B.

So what about heterosexual couples who can't have kids? Should that be outlawed? According to your religion, only heterosexual people of childbearing age who have a healthy sperm count and no reproductive issues should be legally allowed to get married?

If that's the case, then maybe you should be spending your energy trying to alter the laws to make all marriages between sterile, child-free and elderly hetero couples illegal.

and how about all them couples who a physically able to have children and simply CHOOSE not to? Should their marriages be annulled, since they choose not to have children?

They are REFUSING to have children (gasp!!)

Lyric... you're starting to bother me.

I find it amusing that you preach about tolerance but as soon as somebody disagrees with you they are a bigot and a homophobe.

Lyric... you're starting to bother me.

I find it amusing that you preach about tolerance but as soon as somebody disagrees with you they are a bigot and a homophobe.
Some people have clearly earned the title

eyeglasses and other TOOLS are natural. Animals in the wild use TOOLS to help them survive. Animals in the wild are not naturally gay.

Lyric... you're starting to bother me.

I find it amusing that you preach about tolerance but as soon as somebody disagrees with you they are a bigot and a homophobe.
Homophobia is a scientific mental disorder. It is defined as "a person who hates or fears homosexual people," and from this definition it seems Lyric is using the term correctly in describing you, as you have an irrational dislike/hatred (perhaps fear?) of homosexuals.

Some people have clearly earned the title
By following my religion and it's leaders, or by giving it a biological spin? I've presented all the arguement I need to and all some of you... people have to say about it is "Well you're a bigot so there"

I do appreciate those who have actually tried to DISCUSS the matter rather than 'name call', however.

I'm not even going to bother...

SAME HERE!


PS: i'm not here :rolleyes:

Would you still believe this if you were in the minority?

What if, say, Muslims were the majority in this country? Would you submit to Sharia law?

Of course he wouldn't!!

Then he might know what it FELT LIKE to be an oppressed minority....and then his bigotry would go away real quick!!

Homophobia is a scientific mental disorder. It is defined as "a person who hates or fears homosexual people," and from this definition it seems Lyric is using the term correctly in describing you, as you have an irrational dislike/hatred (perhaps fear?) of homosexuals.
The only thing I fear of homosexuals is that they, their 'marriages', and their little pride parades signify the sad dysfunction of society and the sin that runs rampant through it.

As for "hate", I would not say I hate them. As so many of them like to cry out, "it's not their fault"... and I recognize that. Like a child born with AIDS, you cannot blame the child, that would get you nowhere... the only thing you can do is try and fix the problem.

Of course he wouldn't!!

Then he might know what it FELT LIKE to be an oppressed minority....and then his bigotry would go away real quick!!


How about you let people answer for themselves instead of putting words in their mouth?

The only thing I fear of homosexuals is that they, their 'marriages', and their little pride parades signify the sad dysfunction of society and the sin that runs rampant through it.

As for "hate", I would not say I hate them. As so many of them like to cry out, "it's not their fault"... and I recognize that. Like a child born with AIDS, you cannot blame the child, that would get you nowhere... the only thing you can do is try and fix the problem.

And what in your opinion would you say is the best way to fix the percieved problem? Frankly I just say give it to them and be done with it. The marriages aren't worse then all the deaths from the drug wars/genocides/terroist attacks and other such assorted nastyness in this world today.

By following my religion and it's leaders, or by giving it a biological spin? I've presented all the arguement I need to and all some of you... people have to say about it is "Well you're a bigot so there"

I do appreciate those who have actually tried to DISCUSS the matter rather than 'name call', however.
We have ... and you have fallen back and not only refused to recognize that all of us that are arguing one side are not all minorities but that some are also Christian in of themselves

You have also displayed the requirements for the term "bigot"
You may present a biblical (supposedly) justification for thus said bigotry but it does not change the fact that you qualify

And enough that homophobe seems to fit as well (specially with the contempt you seem to show)

You have done it in an asinine "I am infallible and this is the only way to interpret the bible" sort of way that is in of itself upsetting to some on here who are themselves Christian and do not see it your way

All in all the terms from my perspective seem to fit

Intolerant has such a negative connotation with it... would you allow a poisonous spider to crawl up your arm untouched?

Ah, so now you are comparing homosexuals with poisonous spiders...geez, and you claim to not be intolerant??


Nothing I can do about it, but luckily ones who agree with me are in power. Therefore, i'm sorry you're not comfortable with THAT. But, thankfully, there's nothing you can do about it.



That's right. As long as DIEBOLD is counting the votes...and as long as there is no voter-verified paper trail...there is nothing we can do about it.

But we all know that those who agree with you are in power simply because they cheated and got away with it, because the corporate-owned media refuses to report on it, no matter how many facts come to light to support the idea that the elections were stolen.

Because the corporate-owned media has vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Homophobia is a scientific mental disorder. It is defined as "a person who hates or fears homosexual people," and from this definition it seems Lyric is using the term correctly in describing you, as you have an irrational dislike/hatred (perhaps fear?) of homosexuals.


So, having a moral standard that teaches homosexuality is wrong automatically means I must hate and fear homosexuals? Wonderful, I never knew that! I'm sorry, but no.

Of course he wouldn't!!

Then he might know what it FELT LIKE to be an oppressed minority....and then his bigotry would go away real quick!!
Oppressed? Hardly. You aren't confined to your house on weekdays, limited to choices in clothing... you apparently like to overuse the word "oppress"

Is it "oppressive" that it's not socially acceptable for a man to wear a dress? No, it isn't. That's what society says, likewise, it's not socially acceptable for gays to 'marry'.

You aren't oppressed, it's simply how society works, with majority's influencing it more than minorities.

eyeglasses and other TOOLS are natural. Animals in the wild use TOOLS to help them survive. Animals in the wild are not naturally gay.
Care to prove that?

That's right. As long as DIEBOLD is counting the votes...and as long as there is no voter-verified paper trail...there is nothing we can do about it.

But we all know that those who agree with you are in power simply because they cheated and got away with it, because the corporate-owned media refuses to report on it, no matter how many facts come to light to support the idea that the elections were stolen.

Because the corporate-owned media has vested interest in keeping the status quo.



Conspiracy theories....what will she think of next? ;)

People can change from gay to straight. I've heard of many people that have made this change. There was some kind of therapy and counseling. But to those of you who say it's genetic and they can't help it...well...they can.

So, having a moral standard that teaches homosexuality is wrong automatically means I must hate and fear homosexuals? Wonderful, I never knew that! I'm sorry, but no.
He/she has gone beyond belief that it is only a sin and gone into a “contempt” for homosexuals range
That also falls under the category of homophobe

Care to prove that? A male friend of mine would vouch that my male dog tried to rape him when he was younger. Also my dog doesn't mind whether another dog's male or female, as long as it's blonde (really).

Way to apply the double-standard. Have you ever thought that, hmm, maybe WE are miserable at seeing sin permeate every aspect of society? I'm sorry, but, as a citizen with the right to vote, I'm going to fight your secular agenda as long as you try to force me to recognize your way of life as "acceptable".

Tough Shit. "Sin" is not to be dealt with by Civil Law.

I will, one day, if you are correct, answer for my sins. And so shall you answer for yours. Because not a one among us is sinless.

And there is no heirarchy of sin...that is to say...any one sin is no worse than any other sin....sin is sin is sin...and ALL HAVEN SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

He/she has gone beyond belief that it is only a sin and gone into a “contempt” for homosexuals range
That also falls under the category of homophobe



It's more of a contempt for Lyric, which I could easily understand.

People can change from gay to straight. I've heard of many people that have made this change. There was some kind of therapy and counseling. But to those of you who say it's genetic and they can't help it...well...they can.
Proof?

Let me try this another way
"
People can change from strait to gay. I've heard of many people that have made this change ... there was some kind of therapy and counseling but thoes who say its genetic and they cant help it ... well...they can"

Assuming that all your asumptions are correct (that it can be really changed ... though I could argue that) does it make it right to do so?

It's more of a contempt for Lyric, which I could easily understand.
He has displayed more then enough for homosexuals as well

Tough Shit. "Sin" is not to be dealt with by Civil Law.

I will, one day, if you are correct, answer for my sins. And so shall you answer for yours. Because not a one among us is sinless.

And there is no heirarchy of sin...that is to say...any one sin is no worse than any other sin....sin is sin is sin...and ALL HAVEN SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

i am sinless, having just repented, unless you count this post as sinful, sounding like a right wing neo-con, you probably believe farting is a sin, so I am 2 strikes down already..bugger ! (3 now)

Tough Shit. "Sin" is not to be dealt with by Civil Law.

I will, one day, if you are correct, answer for my sins. And so shall you answer for yours. Because not a one among us is sinless.

And there is no heirarchy of sin...that is to say...any one sin is no worse than any other sin....sin is sin is sin...and ALL HAVEN SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.



True, we have all sinned but we're not the ones trying to have the government recognize it as acceptable.

We have ... and you have fallen back and not only refused to recognize that all of us that are arguing one side are not all minorities but that some are also Christian in of themselves

You have also displayed the requirements for the term "bigot"
You may present a biblical (supposedly) justification for thus said bigotry but it does not change the fact that you qualify

And enough that homophobe seems to fit as well (specially with the contempt you seem to show)

You have done it in an asinine "I am infallible and this is the only way to interpret the bible" sort of way that is in of itself upsetting to some on here who are themselves Christian and do not see it your way

All in all the terms from my perspective seem to fit
It's sad that all of you don't realize you're doing the same thing I am.

You're telling me that i'm "wrong", and then you never stop talking about how apparently it's a morale insult for me to do the same thing.

As for me arguing with Christians, fine, perhaps I am arguing with SOME christians, but i'd say the ones bothering me the most are not the Christians... because at the very least they TRY to understand what I am saying rather than act in the manner some of these people are and just instantly label me a bigot and a homophobe.

Care to prove that?

Go find me a gay animal.

Animal instincts keep them straight in the wild.

And if scientists found gay animals in the wild, don't you think it would be all over the liberal media? CNN would be screaming about how being gay is accepted in the wild and should be accepted in people too.

eyeglasses and other TOOLS are natural. Animals in the wild use TOOLS to help them survive. Animals in the wild are not naturally gay.

The amount of naturally tool using animals (not counting humans) is significantly lower than the number of natural bi- and homosexuals ;) Bonobos are a popular example of animals that as a species reguraly engage in both straight and gay sex. Ostriches are an example of where a minority (about 2%) is explictedly homosexual. Homosexual geese, swans and dolphins engage in "marriages" for life. And the list goes on. The main advantage for couples seems to be that two males can better defend a territory.

But, even if it wasn't natural, that wouldn't matter. Some animals are in the completely natural habit of eating their partner after sex for instance.. something we would frown upon. Natural = neutral, not something good or bad.

Proof?

Assuming that all your asumptions are correct (that it can be really changed ... though I could argue that) does it make it right to do so?
That's up to the discretion of the patient (whether or not its right to do so). And, just as a note, the APA does not endorse "reparative" therapy for homosexuals, but stresses "gay affirmation" (helping patients to accept their sexual orientation).

Tough Shit. "Sin" is not to be dealt with by Civil Law.

I will, one day, if you are correct, answer for my sins. And so shall you answer for yours. Because not a one among us is sinless.

And there is no heirarchy of sin...that is to say...any one sin is no worse than any other sin....sin is sin is sin...and ALL HAVEN SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.
And yet there are those that regret ever Sinning in the first place, and those that... well... march in gay pride parades and lobby for gay 'marriage'

Nothing I can do about it, but luckily ones who agree with me are in power. Therefore, i'm sorry you're not comfortable with THAT. But, thankfully, there's nothing you can do about it.

Really? Point me to the senatory who claimed that mob rule was a good thing, as you consistently do?

Yes, it does. It insults my religion, and my freedom to practice my religion without this sort of blatant public defiance toward certain aspects of it.

Allowing gays to get married does not infringe upon your right to practice your own religion at all. You can still continue thinking they are sinners. Your church can continue to keep them out. None of that is changed in the least.

Do you also think that a Muslim praying to Allah infringes upon your freedom to practice your religion? If not, why does that view get to exist, while the view that homosexuals are human beings doesn't?

I don't have a right not to be insulted, but I believe there is some "stuff" in there about me being able to choose my faith without having to worry about the basic principles of it, and it's leaders being infringed upon by the law.

Again, having legal marriage wouldn't infringe on the leaders of your religion in any way. They could still refuse to perform such ceremonies. They can still preach that it is wrong. How are they infringed upon?

Again with the slavery comparison. GAYS ARE NOT BEING BEATEN, ENSLAVED, TORTURED, FORCED TO WORK, OR CAPTURED BY ANYBODY.

Irrelevant. They are being denied equal protection under the law, just as blacks were in the past.

Blacks and women are not even comparable to gays. They are biologically ineffecient and are nature's way of thinning the population. THAT is fact.

Wow, you have no concept of science at all, do you?

Science AND Religion both back this up, and that's hard to come by.

As both a scientist and a religious person, I can call bullshit on this.

I'm saying that the government, and society for that matter has always been the "final sayso" on any matter. When women were inferior, the government changed it's policy and so did society's interpretation of the bible. When blacks were inferior, same thing. These were good moves. However... as long as the government maintains it's current position on things society will come to believe as I do. If a a few generations grow up under these current laws it will just be a matter of time before my 'side' vastly outnumbers your side, because of the way society works. This, I am saying, is a good thing.

Actually, by your own argument, it is just a matter of time until gay marriage is accepted - and the Bible is interpreted as allowing it. Interestingly enough, this is what many believe to be the correct interpretation.

Currently, about 60% of the US population believe that homosexuals should be allowed civil unions. In truth darling, you are in the minority.

Completely biologically speaking, people are born to have sex, to pass on their genes, to increase the genepool, to better the chances of survival for the species. Do they do this? No.

Funny, years upon years of biology and this is the first I've heard of this little theory. Do you have actual evidence to back it up?

It's sad that all of you don't realize you're doing the same thing I am.

You're telling me that i'm "wrong", and then you never stop talking about how apparently it's a morale insult for me to do the same thing.

As for me arguing with Christians, fine, perhaps I am arguing with SOME christians, but i'd say the ones bothering me the most are not the Christians... because at the very least they TRY to understand what I am saying rather than act in the manner some of these people are and just instantly label me a bigot and a homophobe.
I have not … and I will argue if you quit making very contemptuous posts

But you have a tendency to say things in a manner that is very insulting, hardly a way to go about stating your honest opinion if you want a true discussion.

You present everything in an “I am infallible and holier then thou” attitude that is upsetting and hard to conduct an organized debate

If you wish an honest discussion I would look at your presentation and step back some … we all get a bit heated in debates, the trick is to step back and breath. We have all made the mistake of posting in anger or emotion but that almost never leads to good debate just more of the same.

You think homosexuality is a sin
Fine

You and your religion have ever right to believe anything you please and practice (within your religion or belief) whatever you want baring harm to others.

Beyond that your religion … like EVERY other religion has no place in the United States government. This not only in the best interest for civil liberties of minorities right now, but also in your best interest if things change and you become one.

Go find me a gay animal.

Animal instincts keep them straight in the wild.

And if scientists found gay animals in the wild, don't you think it would be all over the liberal media? CNN would be screaming about how being gay is accepted in the wild and should be accepted in people too.
There are examples of homosexual activity in animals. However, the reasons for this and if animals really do intentionally make a lifetime same-sex commitment is largely debatable, so it can never really be publicized as fact without major scrunity. I posted an article that attacked the idea of animal homosexuality a week or so ago.

Go find me a gay animal.

Animal instincts keep them straight in the wild.

And if scientists found gay animals in the wild, don't you think it would be all over the liberal media? CNN would be screaming about how being gay is accepted in the wild and should be accepted in people too. One word: bonobos.

And yet there are those that regret ever Sinning in the first place, and those that... well... march in gay pride parades and lobby for gay 'marriage'
They do not believe it is a sin … as I do not.

They do not believe it is a sin … as I do not.


She just used it in a post about sin...

There are examples of homosexual activity in animals. However, the reasons for this and if animals really do intentionally make a lifetime same-sex commitment is largely debatable, so it can never really be publicized as fact without major scrunity. I posted an article that attacked the idea of animal homosexuality a week or so ago.
And if I remember right it did a pretty bad job at it … making all kinds of assumptions

Lyric... you're starting to bother me.

I find it amusing that you preach about tolerance but as soon as somebody disagrees with you they are a bigot and a homophobe.

Good. Glad I'm getting under your skin. Must mean something i'm saying is finally making you think.

And, no...plenty of people who disagree with me are not bigots and homophobes.

But these are people who actually have LOGICAL REASONS for their disagreement. These are people who actually CITE THEIR SOURCES when they make a claim to back up a point.

what you are doing is merely setting up straw men, dragging red herrings, and generally flamebaiting and insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

And the way you say "you minorities" tell me everything I want to know about you. It's the tone you convey with your words that lets me know you are a homophobe and a bigot.

It isn't because you disagree with me.

It's your REASONS for disagreeing with me that make you a homophobe and a bigot.

Get it?

In other words...if you want to disagree with me...then come up with some reasonable, logical reasons to disagree with me...and when you make claims to back up an assertion you made...by all means CITE YOUR SOURCE...or don't make the claim.

See, there is a way to disagree that is respectful. You haven't learned how to do that yet.

All you know to do is to throw labels and names around...and set up straw men and red herrings. And that isn't going to earn you any respect in my eyes.

You remain, in my eyes, both a homophobe and a bigot. And until you change your views...or at least, your argument reasons and style...you shall remain...in my eyes....both a bigot and a homophobe.

eyeglasses and other TOOLS are natural. Animals in the wild use TOOLS to help them survive. Animals in the wild are not naturally gay.

Horribly incorrect. There are all sorts of species that exhibit homosexual behavior.

She just used it in a post about sin...
Yes but if they don’t recognize it as a sin how can they regret something that to them is not a sin

How about you let people answer for themselves instead of putting words in their mouth?

Eskertainia has already demonstrated that he won't answer questions. After all, it might actually make him think about what he is saying.

The only thing I fear of homosexuals is that they, their 'marriages', and their little pride parades signify the sad dysfunction of society and the sin that runs rampant through it.

As for "hate", I would not say I hate them. As so many of them like to cry out, "it's not their fault"... and I recognize that. Like a child born with AIDS, you cannot blame the child, that would get you nowhere... the only thing you can do is try and fix the problem.

Your choice of words again highlights your bigotry and your homophobia.

Maybe...have you stoppped to consider...that homosexuals do not see their condition as a PROBLEM?? Maybe homosexuals do not see their condition as something that NEEDS to get FIXED??

But, see, you obviously DO see it as a PROBLEM that needs to be FIXED.

Your choice of words indicates to me that you are homophobic. That is to say, you have an irrational fear or hatred of homosexual people.

Really? Point me to the senatory who claimed that mob rule was a good thing, as you consistently do?
Mob rule? Majority rule and mob rule are two different things.

Allowing gays to get married does not infringe upon your right to practice your own religion at all. You can still continue thinking they are sinners. Your church can continue to keep them out. None of that is changed in the least.
Yes it does infringe on my rights, I dealt with this a few pages back and I explained it better and with more detail than I care to now because I know there are many more trying to insult me as I type this.

Do you also think that a Muslim praying to Allah infringes upon your freedom to practice your religion? If not, why does that view get to exist, while the view that homosexuals are human beings doesn't?
Because homosexuality is a sin and all around biologically unnacceptable, whereas I DO have the ability for religious tolerance.

Again, having legal marriage wouldn't infringe on the leaders of your religion in any way. They could still refuse to perform such ceremonies. They can still preach that it is wrong. How are they infringed upon?
Again, I dealt with this.

Irrelevant. They are being denied equal protection under the law, just as blacks were in the past.
No, they aren't. They can get jobs and do whatever they please with their lives.

Actually, by your own argument, it is just a matter of time until gay marriage is accepted - and the Bible is interpreted as allowing it. Interestingly enough, this is what many believe to be the correct interpretation.
Actually, by my own argument, it is just a matter of time until gay 'marriage' is completely shut up about because new generations will just ACCEPT the law rather than never shut up about it.

Currently, about 60% of the US population believe that homosexuals should be allowed civil unions. In truth darling, you are in the minority.
And yet we have people in power, more than 60% of them, that are against it? Interesting. In truth, darling, you are the minority.

Funny, years upon years of biology and this is the first I've heard of this little theory. Do you have actual evidence to back it up?
Why yes, it's called Charles Darwin's theory on evolution... or did you sleep through that basic biological teaching?

And if I remember right it did a pretty bad job at it … making all kinds of assumptions
As do all articles dealing with the subject. Let's face it, when you deal with animals, assumption will be made, no matter what your stance. I don't hold that or any other article up as the holy grail of the subject.

How about you let people answer for themselves instead of putting words in their mouth?

Because I already know the answer. and I know he wouldn't truthfully answer the question. because it would force him to feel what it is like to be an oppressed minority.

And that might cause him to change his views, and force him to let go of his oh-so-comforatable bigotry, hatred, and prejudice.

Which is something people like him...and you...would never want to do.

Yes it does infringe on my rights, I dealt with this a few pages back and I explained it better and with more detail than I care to now because I know there are many more trying to insult me as I type this.



You have no right to not be offended

While they have every right for equality under the law

It's sad that all of you don't realize you're doing the same thing I am.

You're telling me that i'm "wrong", and then you never stop talking about how apparently it's a morale insult for me to do the same thing.

Incorrect.

We are telling you that we believe differently from you. We respect your right to your viewpoint - so long as you don't attempt to enforce it upon others. We simply expect the same. You have yet to give that respect.

Go find me a gay animal.

Sure.

Do you want bird or mammal?

Animal instincts keep them straight in the wild.

Tell that to all of the birds and mammals that aren't kept straight.

All you know to do is to throw labels and names around...and set up straw men and red herrings. And that isn't going to earn you any respect in my eyes.

You remain, in my eyes, both a homophobe and a bigot. And until you change your views...or at least, your argument reasons and style...you shall remain...in my eyes....both a bigot and a homophobe.
Luckily, I don't care if I have your respect, nor do I particularly desire it.

If YOU wish to throw the label around of homophobe and bigot, go right ahead. It only says to me that that's all you have left... labels and empty titles.

Luckily, I don't care if I have your respect, nor do I particularly desire it.

If YOU wish to throw the label around of homophobe and bigot, go right ahead. It only says to me that that's all you have left... labels and empty titles.
Not necessarily empty … you do seem to fit the definitions

Incorrect.

We are telling you that we believe differently from you. We respect your right to your viewpoint - so long as you don't attempt to enforce it upon others. We simply expect the same. You have yet to give that respect.
Incorrect, directly after my first post I was instantly UNDER ATTACK because of my belief, and I have since defended myself and put some of my attackers under attack.

I have given all the respect that is deserved to those that have shown me that same respect.

And if I remember right it did a pretty bad job at it … making all kinds of assumptions

And confined itself to a few cases, leaving out the vast majority of animals in which such behavior has been reporated.

Interestingly enough, I have yet to see an anti-gay explanation for transsexual bighorn sheep. Apparently, that one is just too hard to explain away.

People can change from gay to straight. I've heard of many people that have made this change. There was some kind of therapy and counseling. But to those of you who say it's genetic and they can't help it...well...they can.

That has been disputed by many reputable psychotherapists. Even if I concede the point that gays can change to straight...does it follow that they should be FORCED to??

How would you like it if someone tried to force you to be something you were not naturally inclined to be?

And, if one CAN change from gay to straihgt...and I doubt it...then it follows one can ALSO change from straight to gay. So, at what point did YOU "decide" to be straight? Or did it JUST HAPPEN??

Incidentally, one of the most famous ex-gays, guy by the name of Paulk...was later discovered hanging out in gay bars again.

People don't choose to be straight, it's how science and God intended it, Lyric.

Homosexuality however...

I've heard many talk of homosexual "oppression"; is this really the right term to apply to this situation? Yes, homosexuals are being denied the right to legal unions. However, they retain all of their basic constitutional rights, including the right to vote, own property, as well as having the legal ability tobe gay and engage in homosexual activity. If homosexuals faced true oppression, the only right denied to them would not be that of the ability to obtain legal unions. I know many see the legal treatment of homosexuals in relation to unions as unfair and unjust -- however, when compared with the sufferings of racial minorities, women, and the genocide faced by many other groups in history, the current troubles homosexuals face is incomparable to oppression. Oppression, in my opinion, is a term too loosely applied in this case.

Just feel like asking, what makes gay marriages so bad compared to world hunger, genocides, and all the other assorted nastyness out there? It seems to me that if we could put half as much energy as is put into going on and on about this, and other things humanity might be able to make the world a better place.

People don't choose to be straight, it's how science and God intended it, Lyric.

Homosexuality however...
Oh any proof?(and science is a method … it can not “intend” anything)

It's more of a contempt for Lyric, which I could easily understand.

Well, if that is so, rest assured the contempt is returned. In spades. To both of you.

And I'm honored that someone I consider contemptible...has contempt for me.

that means I'm on the right track, and not backsliding into ways I find contemptible.

Good. I'm in keeping with my own morals and values. i'm not backsliding if one I consider contemptible hgolds me in contempt.

So...Neo...the fact that you say you hold me in contempt is, so far...the nicest thing you have ever said to or about me and I thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Mob rule? Majority rule and mob rule are two different things.

No, they aren't - at least not in the way that you describe them.

Under the Constitution, majority rule is very clearly prohibited where it infringes upon equal protection of the minorities.

Yes it does infringe on my rights, I dealt with this a few pages back and I explained it better and with more detail than I care to now because I know there are many more trying to insult me as I type this.

No darling, you didn't "deal with it." If a law in now way causes you to change your beliefs or keeps you from living by them, how can you claim that it infringes upon your right to free practice?

You can't. All you can claim is that it offends you - and you have no right to not be offended.

Because homosexuality is a sin and all around biologically unnacceptable, whereas I DO have the ability for religious tolerance.

(a) These two statements are incompatible. There are many religions that do not consider homosexuality to be a sin - including some versions of CHristianity. THus, you obviously do not have tolerance for their religion.

(b) If homosexuality is "biologically unacceptable", then it can't possibly occur. Oh, wait, it does. Therefore, it is not biologically unacceptable. Meanwhile, you should tread lightly here. I am, for all intents and purposes, a biologist myself.

No, they aren't. They can get jobs and do whatever they please with their lives.

Ok, so if I took away your right to get married, you wouldn't be denied equal protection? After all, you would still be able to get a job.

And yet we have people in power, more than 60% of them, that are against it? Interesting. In truth, darling, you are the minority.

Wrong. There are more people in the country against calling it marriage. All the polls show that 60% are for civil unions.

Why yes, it's called Charles Darwin's theory on evolution... or did you sleep through that basic biological teaching?

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that states that. Anyone who claims it as such has a horrible misunderstanding of the theory.

I've heard many talk of homosexual "oppression"; is this really the right term to apply to this situation? Yes, homosexuals are being denied the right to legal unions. However, they retain all of their basic constitutional rights, including the right to vote, own property, as well as having the legal ability tobe gay and engage in homosexual activity. If homosexuals faced true oppression, the only right denied to them would not be that of the ability to obtain legal unions. I know many see the legal treatment of homosexuals in relation to unions as unfair and unjust -- however, when compared with the sufferings of racial minorities, women, and the genocide faced by many other groups in history, the current troubles homosexuals face is incomparable to oppression. Oppression, in my opinion, is a term too loosely applied in this case.
Because it is “not that bad compared to…” does not mean that it is right to deny them equality

It makes a big difference in their lives , and its also about principal … denying them equality because there has been worse in the past is not an excuse

Oh any proof?(and science is a method … it can not “intend” anything)
Proof of what? That i'm correct on both accounts? I've given numerous examples of it already.

People don't choose to be straight, it's how science and God intended it, Lyric.

Homosexuality however...
Even if homosexuality is not a biological trait, I sincerely doubt, based on the experience of others, that it is a conscious choice. Whether its due to psychological reasons or some sort of defect (as its often been theorized), it appears to be, in many cases, an uncontrollable trait.

Because it is “not that bad compared to…” does not mean that it is right to deny them equality

It makes a big difference in their lives , and its also about principal … denying them equality because there has been worse in the past is not an excuse
That wasn't my point.

Incorrect, directly after my first post I was instantly UNDER ATTACK because of my belief, and I have since defended myself and put some of my attackers under attack.

I have given all the respect that is deserved to those that have shown me that same respect.

No, you have not been under attack because of your belief. You have been under attack because of your clearly stated wish to enforce that belief upon others. You have also been under attack because of your claim that your belief is the only possibly correct belief - a very arrogant statement indeed.

True, we have all sinned but we're not the ones trying to have the government recognize it as acceptable.

The government should not be making SOME sin acceptable and OTHER sin unacceptable.

We are only asking to have the same rights and privileges YOU take for granted. To spend our lives...and to make a permanent, lasting commitment to THE PERSON WE LOVE.

Is that such a bad thing?

Proof of what? That i'm correct on both accounts? I've given numerous examples of it already.
That its more of a choice to be homosexual then it is to be heterosexual

Proof of what? That i'm correct on both accounts? I've given numerous examples of it already.

No, you haven't.

You have given rhetoric which was promptly disputed. Meanwhile, it is disputed by scientific observation.

Yet you ignore it.

Go find me a gay animal.

Animal instincts keep them straight in the wild.

And if scientists found gay animals in the wild, don't you think it would be all over the liberal media? CNN would be screaming about how being gay is accepted in the wild and should be accepted in people too.

Tell you what.
Got any public dog parks in your town? If so...go to one...and see if you can count how many times one male dogs jumps another male dog.

As a dog-owner, who has used public dog parks, I can assure you this is a common thing among dogs.

You lose. But thanks for playing.

No, they aren't - at least not in the way that you describe them.

Under the Constitution, majority rule is very clearly prohibited where it infringes upon equal protection of the minorities.

No darling, you didn't "deal with it." If a law in now way causes you to change your beliefs or keeps you from living by them, how can you claim that it infringes upon your right to free practice?

You can't. All you can claim is that it offends you - and you have no right to not be offended.

(a) These two statements are incompatible. There are many religions that do not consider homosexuality to be a sin - including some versions of CHristianity. THus, you obviously do not have tolerance for their religion.

(b) If homosexuality is "biologically unacceptable", then it can't possibly occur. Oh, wait, it does. Therefore, it is not biologically unacceptable. Meanwhile, you should tread lightly here. I am, for all intents and purposes, a biologist myself.

Ok, so if I took away your right to get married, you wouldn't be denied equal protection? After all, you would still be able to get a job.

Wrong. There are more people in the country against calling it marriage. All the polls show that 60% are for civil unions.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that states that. Anyone who claims it as such has a horrible misunderstanding of the theory.
First off, you are the minority. Civil unions is much too general to mean anything. It could mean as little as a peice of paper that has both of their names on it and is put in a big warehouse that's on government property. That statistic is flawed.

And perhaps you shouldn't try your hand at biological discussion with myself, I assure you, you won't win.

Why yes, it's called Charles Darwin's theory on evolution... or did you sleep through that basic biological teaching?

Homosexual and/or altruistic individuals within a species are not in conflict with the theories of evolution and natural selection: it is just an indication (not proof) that having a small amount of gays/altruistic individuals is good for the continuation of the species as a whole.

And yet there are those that regret ever Sinning in the first place, and those that... well... march in gay pride parades and lobby for gay 'marriage'

Yes. And there are those who regret sinning...and then there are those who actively preach and practice hatred against their fellow human beings.

Tell you what.
Got any public dog parks in your town? If so...go to one...and see if you can count how many times one male dogs jumps another male dog.

As a dog-owner, who has used public dog parks, I can assure you this is a common thing among dogs.

You lose. But thanks for playing.
But does that dog make a lifetime commitment to the dog its humping? Even if it does, can you prove that the animal is biologically homosexual?

Seriously, I posted that article because I found it interesting, but it has pretty much led me to one major conclusion:

Animals cannot be used to justify anything in human society (and I include this in cases both for and against homosexuality).

Yes. And there are those who regret sinning...and then there are those who actively preach and practice hatred against their fellow human beings.
I have a hatred for Sin, not human beings. I feel sorry for those humans that have been afflicted with sin, not hatred.

Well, if that is so, rest assured the contempt is returned. In spades. To both of you.

And I'm honored that someone I consider contemptible...has contempt for me.

that means I'm on the right track, and not backsliding into ways I find contemptible.

Good. I'm in keeping with my own morals and values. i'm not backsliding if one I consider contemptible hgolds me in contempt.

So...Neo...the fact that you say you hold me in contempt is, so far...the nicest thing you have ever said to or about me and I thank you from the bottom of my heart!



I don't hold contempt for you because it's a sin. I'm saying that I could understand why he would though.

I have a hatred for Sin, not human beings. I feel sorry for those humans that have been afflicted with sin, not hatred.
You have every right to feel that way
But you do not have the right to let your emotions restrict the freedoms of others

I have a hatred for Sin, not human beings. I feel sorry for those humans that have been afflicted with sin, not hatred.



Just ignore her, most of her argument has hinged upon "You hate me, you oppress me, you're a bigot!!!" ad hominems.

Just ignore her, most of her argument has hinged upon "You hate me, you oppress me, you're a bigot!!!" ad hominems.
I agree... do you think she knows how old it's getting or are we the only ones to see it?

Gay? That even sounds gay, That's weird, of course your weird if you hang out with weird people, so that makes me awsome :cool:

Not really,

But is this thread for or against Gaydom? God it's so confusing! :headbang:

I agree... do you think she knows how old it's getting or are we the only ones to see it?



I guess she just enjoys the exhorbitant amounts of attention she's getting from it ;)

Luckily, I don't care if I have your respect, nor do I particularly desire it.

If YOU wish to throw the label around of homophobe and bigot, go right ahead. It only says to me that that's all you have left... labels and empty titles.

Maybe that IS all I have left...because you have REFUSED to listen to all the intelligent, reasoned arguments I made earlier in this thread.

But how many times can you continue to state and restate the arguments? How many times do you beat your head against a brick wall?

Maybe labels and empty titles ARE all I have left now. But at least I HAD something more than labels and empty titles. Unlike you.

I guess she just enjoys the exhorbitant amounts of attention she's getting from it ;)
Amazing I was thinking the same thing about you and Eskertania’s sometimes amazingly inflammatory posting style and statements.
Seemed to me to be in a way to just get peoples attention

I have a hatred for Sin, not human beings. I feel sorry for those humans that have been afflicted with sin, not hatred.

Noble :) But on what basis is it "bad" ? "I think my God does not like it" is not really convincing to me. A logical explanation of why your God would consider it bad that goes beyond "he said so" would go a lot further... provided the motivation is good of course.

And perhaps you shouldn't try your hand at biological discussion with myself, I assure you, you won't win.

Considering that I have actually researched this topic in peer-reviewed journals, I believe I most likely would.

Unlike you, I use evidence to back me up (as a scientist, we're trained to do that), not just rhetoric and "I AM RIGHT SO EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD JUST BOW TO ME!" tactics.

People don't choose to be straight, it's how science and God intended it, Lyric.

Homosexuality however...

And you proof is??

Just out of curiosity:

Lyric = Labarador?

If so, welcome back - long time, no see.


And yes, Lyric can be inflammatory sometimes (especially if she is who I think she is). However, my guess is that, had you lived her life, you would be very similar.

Meanwhile, you two haven't been much less inflammatory. And I haven't seen Lyric claiming to be the one with absolute knowledge in a world of fallible human beings.

Just feel like asking, what makes gay marriages so bad compared to world hunger, genocides, and all the other assorted nastyness out there? It seems to me that if we could put half as much energy as is put into going on and on about this, and other things humanity might be able to make the world a better place.

*Waits for answer to question.*

But seriously we live in a world with a great many problems in it as well as advances. What makes a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married worse then what goes on out there? People are willing to blow themselves up to achieve their ends, others are murder for profit, and people are worried about a man and a man/woman and woman getting married. Am I the only one to see a problem with this?

*Waits for answer to question.*

But seriously we live in a world with a great many problems in it as well as advances. What makes a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married worse then what goes on out there? People are willing to blow themselves up to achieve their ends, others are murder for profit, and people are worried about a man and a man/woman and woman getting married. Am I the only one to see a problem with this?
No...you're not. But it's pretty un-PC to say so.

I have a hatred for Sin, not human beings. I feel sorry for those humans that have been afflicted with sin, not hatred.

Translation: I am morally superior to others, and I look down upon those who, in my judgement, do not measure up to MY standards.

Sorry, Eskertania, it isn't gonna wash.

Your words say one thing, and your actions say something entirely different.

You really DO hate homosexuals. Why can you not just admit it?

Noble :) But on what basis is it "bad" ? "I think my God does not like it" is not really convincing to me. A logical explanation of why your God would consider it bad that goes beyond "he said so" would go a lot further... provided the motivation is good of course.
I would love to.

The species survives how? By sexually reproducing and creating offspring, who in turn will sexually reproduce with others, have children... the cycle of life goes on. Sexual reproduction is more favorable than Asexual reproduction because of the crossing of genes and the 'randomization' of the new child, giving it a chance to flourish in the environment with the best traits from it's parents, and some new ones unique to the individual.

Now then, let's say a child is born with telekenisis, or some other superhuman ability. The children will also 'most likely' carry the trait, and they will undergo sexual reproduction, and so on and so forth. The species is benefited by this child due to the very nature of sexual reproduction, the very nature that God Himself designed to work in such a perfect way.

Or let's say the child is gay. Let's say that child with, oh, the strength of 30 people, is homosexual. They don't reproduce, the gene is left out of the genepool and in fact this sexual "preference" is a hinderance to all of the species. Clearly, not something God would want, not how it was intended to work.

This is how I look at it. The fact that God designed nature, and the fact that homosexuals go against it, proves to me that it would be something God would consider as sin.

Or let's say the child is gay. Let's say that child with, oh, the strength of 30 people, is homosexual. They don't reproduce, the gene is left out of the genepool and in fact this sexual "preference" is a hinderance to all of the species. Clearly, not something God would want, not how it was intended to work.

Homosexuals can reproduce. BZZZT! You lose.

Incidentally, if you look at the numbers, a certain percentage of homosexuals is actually beneficial to the propogation of genes, especially in social species, such as humans.

Translation: I am morally superior to others, and I look down upon those who, in my judgement, do not measure up to MY standards.

Sorry, Eskertania, it isn't gonna wash.

Your words say one thing, and your actions say something entirely different.

You really DO hate homosexuals. Why can you not just admit it?
That translation is completely wrong, I don't even see the basis for it that I usually see in incorrect statements like that one. Normally I can at least comprehend where somebody is coming from, but that just seems completely random.

I think, in fact, you just like to think that anybody against gay marriage must hate gays... and for that, I really feel sorry for you.

Homosexuals can reproduce. BZZZT! You lose.

Incidentally, if you look at the numbers, a certain percentage of homosexuals is actually beneficial to the propogation of genes, especially in social species, such as humans.
Perhaps they >CAN<

But they don't. *DING DING* I win.

Meanwhile, you two haven't been much less inflammatory. And I haven't seen Lyric claiming to be the one with absolute knowledge in a world of fallible human beings.


I'm not claiming to have absolute knowledge (I wish :( ) but I am claiming that the Creator of All does have it...and He condemns homosexuality (and thus, the debate has run another full circle). Now comes the part where you deny that the authority Christ gave to the apostles isn't valid because they are fallible (even though he judged them worthy to preach His will) and I respond and so on. If not for aging, I suppose this thread could go on for infinity :)

Just out of curiosity:

Lyric = Labarador?

If so, welcome back - long time, no see.


And yes, Lyric can be inflammatory sometimes (especially if she is who I think she is). However, my guess is that, had you lived her life, you would be very similar.

Meanwhile, you two haven't been much less inflammatory. And I haven't seen Lyric claiming to be the one with absolute knowledge in a world of fallible human beings.

Actually, no.
But I did find myself often agreeing with Labrador.
and we DO seem to have many parallels, so I can understand why someone might easily confuse us.

I would love to.

The species survives how? By sexually reproducing and creating offspring, who in turn will sexually reproduce with others, have children... the cycle of life goes on. Sexual reproduction is more favorable than Asexual reproduction because of the crossing of genes and the 'randomization' of the new child, giving it a chance to flourish in the environment with the best traits from it's parents, and some new ones unique to the individual.

Now then, let's say a child is born with telekenisis, or some other superhuman ability. The children will also 'most likely' carry the trait, and they will undergo sexual reproduction, and so on and so forth. The species is benefited by this child due to the very nature of sexual reproduction, the very nature that God Himself designed to work in such a perfect way.

Or let's say the child is gay. Let's say that child with, oh, the strength of 30 people, is homosexual. They don't reproduce, the gene is left out of the genepool and in fact this sexual "preference" is a hinderance to all of the species. Clearly, not something God would want, not how it was intended to work.

This is how I look at it. The fact that God designed nature, and the fact that homosexuals go against it, proves to me that it would be something God would consider as sin.
So God functions on biological imperatives? What, then, is your stance on evolution?

Further, adoption is an unnatural way of raising a child. Should we ban that too? This puts you in a bind:
a) If adoption is OK, then why is it immoral for homosexuals to raise adopted children.
b) If it isn't, I don't think God would want children to suffer in orphanages when someone could be doing something about it.

I would love to.

The species survives how? By sexually reproducing and creating offspring, who in turn will sexually reproduce with others, have children... the cycle of life goes on. Sexual reproduction is more favorable than Asexual reproduction because of the crossing of genes and the 'randomization' of the new child, giving it a chance to flourish in the environment with the best traits from it's parents, and some new ones unique to the individual.

Now then, let's say a child is born with telekenisis, or some other superhuman ability. The children will also 'most likely' carry the trait, and they will undergo sexual reproduction, and so on and so forth. The species is benefited by this child due to the very nature of sexual reproduction, the very nature that God Himself designed to work in such a perfect way.

Or let's say the child is gay. Let's say that child with, oh, the strength of 30 people, is homosexual. They don't reproduce, the gene is left out of the genepool and in fact this sexual "preference" is a hinderance to all of the species. Clearly, not something God would want, not how it was intended to work.

This is how I look at it. The fact that God designed nature, and the fact that homosexuals go against it, proves to me that it would be something God would consider as sin.

1) Gay people are not all sterile they can reproduce
2) Some genetic material could get lost … but some gets lost anyways

We are not baby factories we have the ability to rise above the need for pure reproduction

By your logic infertile (because of injury disease or age) should also not be allowed to marry
Or just those that choose to not have kids

Sorry but Marriage goes way beyond pure reproduction in both a legal and emotional context

Or let's say the child is gay. Let's say that child with, oh, the strength of 30 people, is homosexual. They don't reproduce, the gene is left out of the genepool and in fact this sexual "preference" is a hinderance to all of the species. Clearly, not something God would want, not how it was intended to work.

And clearly a misunderstanding of the way biology works.

Let's say that child is gay, but still wants children. He will have them and pass on his traits.

Let's say that this child is gay, but his sister, who also carries the trait is not. She has children. Because he does not have children of his own, he helps take care of them. They now have a better chance of surviving because they have extra caretakers. The trait gets passed on.

Meanwhile, if God did not intend homosexual behavior, why does it happen throughout the higher-order parts of the animal kingdom? Are the animals sinning as well?

This is how I look at it. The fact that God designed nature, and the fact that homosexuals go against it, proves to me that it would be something God would consider as sin.

To say that something occurs in nature and then to say that it is "against nature" is a logical contradiction. If it occurs in nature, it is not against nature. It is part of nature.

I'm not claiming to have absolute knowledge (I wish :( ) but I am claiming that the Creator of All does have it...and He condemns homosexuality (and thus, the debate has run another full circle). Now comes the part where you deny that the authority Christ gave to the apostles isn't valid because they are fallible (even though he judged them worthy to preach His will) and I respond and so on. If not for aging, I suppose this thread could go on for infinity :)
You act as if your interpretation of thus sated “imperative” is infallible

I'm not claiming to have absolute knowledge (I wish :( ) but I am claiming that the Creator of All does have it...and He condemns homosexuality (and thus, the debate has run another full circle).

Those two statements are incompatible. If you do not claim to have absolute knowledge, then you cannot claim to know with absolute certainty what the Creator condemns and does not condemn.

If you claim to know with absolute certainty what God wants, you are yourself claiming infallibility. If you claim yourself to be fallible, you must admit that you might be wrong about what God wants.

Which is it?

Further, adoption is an unnatural way of raising a child. Should we ban that too? This puts you in a bind:
a) If adoption is OK, then why is it immoral for homosexuals to raise adopted children.
b) If it isn't, I don't think God would want children to suffer in orphanages when someone could be doing something about it.



Even orphanages would be preferrable to a family that indoctrinates their adopted children with unscriptural platitudes.

a) If adoption is OK, then why is it immoral for homosexuals to raise adopted children.
b) If it isn't, I don't think God would want children to suffer in orphanages when someone could be doing something about it.
Did I say it was immoral for homosexuals to raise adopted children?

Although it is somewhat sad to think of a child being exposed to sin all of his / her life to such a degree, I believe you are correct. God Himself would probably prefer the child with a family, and I agree with you there.

You would just have to hope that the child has the power to look past the sin that they are exposed to in such vast amounts.

Those two statements are incompatible. If you do not claim to have absolute knowledge, then you cannot claim to know with absolute certainty what the Creator condemns and does not condemn.

If you claim to know with absolute certainty what God wants, you are yourself claiming infallibility. If you claim yourself to be fallible, you must admit that you might be wrong about what God wants.

Which is it?


No, those statements aren't incompatible because God Himself stated his views on homosexuality. I may not have perfect knowledge, but at least I know that.

Even orphanages would be preferrable to a family that indoctrinates their adopted children with unscriptural platitudes.
You know because forced belief takes a whole lot of faith on their kids part

I would be upset if I was Christian at the removal of choice some Christian parents indoctrinate their kids into.

Without knowledge of the world around them they can hardly choose to have faith

No, those statements aren't incompatible because God Himself stated his views on homosexuality. I may not have perfect knowledge, but at least I know that.

No, you don't know that. You believe that. There is a huge difference.

It is no better or worse than the fact that I believe God has guided me to believe otherwise. However, I don't claim to have absolute knowledge of what God wants, as you od.

Or let's say the child is gay. Let's say that child with, oh, the strength of 30 people, is homosexual. They don't reproduce, the gene is left out of the genepool and in fact this sexual "preference" is a hinderance to all of the species. Clearly, not something God would want, not how it was intended to work.

You are now however assuming that it is a good thing if the "mutation" is propagated through the entire race instead of being limited to some individuals. But is it not also possible that it is better for the race as a whole if only a few individuals possess it ?

I referenced altruism earlier. Some animals voluntary serve as "watchguards" for their herd. If a predator approaches they will make a lot of noise to warn the rest, draw the killers attention and not flee while the others do. Obviously this is not a good survival trait for the individual involved, and if every member of the species did the same it would be quite bad for the survivalrate. However, organised like this it works just right: only 1 dies, the rest escapes.

Is it not possible that homosexuality has a similar goal ? A population where looking after another is positive, but where the amount of females or the room for offspring is limited for instance ?

You know because forced belief takes a whole lot of faith on their kids part

I would be upset if I was Christian at the removal of choice some Christian parents indoctrinate their kids into.

Without knowledge of the world around them they can hardly choose to have faith

I certainly am upset at it. Such parents, by their own beliefs, condemn their children to a life without faith in God by indoctrinating them rather than teaching them.

Indoctrination is improper parenting, regardless of what it is you are indoctrinating.

And clearly a misunderstanding of the way biology works.

Let's say that child is gay, but still wants children. He will have them and pass on his traits.

Let's say that this child is gay, but his sister, who also carries the trait is not. She has children. Because he does not have children of his own, he helps take care of them. They now have a better chance of surviving because they have extra caretakers. The trait gets passed on.

Meanwhile, if God did not intend homosexual behavior, why does it happen throughout the higher-order parts of the animal kingdom? Are the animals sinning as well?

To say that something occurs in nature and then to say that it is "against nature" is a logical contradiction. If it occurs in nature, it is not against nature. It is part of nature.
The trait does not get passed on if the sister you speak of doesn't have the trait. If you DO know anything of biology, you know it's a big assumption to think the sister will have the same new trait.

Regarding the happenings in nature, I look at that as a sort of defect. When a creature is BORN gay, that is nature's way of controlling the population by not allowing reproduction. If a creature (human) makes a decision to be gay, than it is sin.

No, you don't know that. You believe that. There is a huge difference.

It is no better or worse than the fact that I believe God has guided me to believe otherwise. However, I don't claim to have absolute knowledge of what God wants, as you od.


If he commands it in scripture, we can pretty much assume it's His will...

Did I say it was immoral for homosexuals to raise adopted children?

Although it is somewhat sad to think of a child being exposed to sin all of his / her life to such a degree, I believe you are correct. God Himself would probably prefer the child with a family, and I agree with you there.

You would just have to hope that the child has the power to look past the sin that they are exposed to in such vast amounts.
That's the thing. You said God hates "unnaturality," whatever that means (as Dempublicents intelligently pointed out). Adoption is not the natural way a child is raised. Why aren't you condemnin adoption?

Oh, and percentage of kids with gay parents who are gay is the same as straight parents.

You know because forced belief takes a whole lot of faith on their kids part

I would be upset if I was Christian at the removal of choice some Christian parents indoctrinate their kids into.

Without knowledge of the world around them they can hardly choose to have faith


Yes, some knowledge of the world is conducive to faith, however, raising children in a Christian household that lives by the standards it teaches will most likely result in children who do not stray from God's will...as opposed to their antithesis secular family.

Here's a thought...

Isn't it strange that people that claim to be straight are so obsessed with the homosexuals?

I'm not even going to bother going through the 80 pages on this thing of comments. Quite frankly, it's because of this whole anti-gay crap that I no longer believe in God, or at least the God that all these religious nutbags follow.

And another thing. The religious people against gays, it says in the Bible "Judge not lest thee be judged" and "love thy neighbor". Trying to take away someone's rights is not loving them, and those of you that go out and protest or think down upon gays or whatever are judging. That is a sin also in the Bible, to judge, it is said that God will be the one to judge, not mankind. Therefore for all of you that claim sins upon the gays, you have sinned just as much by judging them for their DECISIONS in life. It is their choice to act upon the way they feel. They could pretend not to be gay, but why? Would you pretend not to be a silly person because people don't like it? Does it make you feel good to suppress who people are?
And think about this, why is it that when gays get married it ruins the sanctity of marriage? It's because you let it. Religious people just take offence to everything instead of just going "meh, we don't recognize it" and moving on.

Here's one last thought for you anti-gay people. Why can't you just leave gays alone? The majority of them are just trying to live out their lives in peace, without interruption. They have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and you are trying to take that right away from them by disallowing them to have rights based on their sexual preference. This is about as close to racism as you can get without having a specific race involved. Stop it. Leave them alone, live your lives, go to churches that don't recognize gay marriage, where gays are not welcomed, and gays will go to churches where they are.
And marriage was not invented by Catholicism and Christianity. No, marriage in one form or another has been around since the nomadic times, since tribal peoples...oi...

If he commands it in scripture, we can pretty much assume it's His will...
Except that the scriptural basis is weak at best:
http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html

http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html

http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/bible-gay.html

Try reading the original Hebrew/Aramaic.

The trait does not get passed on if the sister you speak of doesn't have the trait. If you DO know anything of biology, you know it's a big assumption to think the sister will have the same new trait.

I didn't make the assumption - I said it could happen. And, of course, you ignore the fact that homosexuals can, and often do, reproduce.

Meanwhile, if we are going with something that is actually possible, it is much, much more unlikely that a single mutation would have the kind of effect you are claiming.

You have to remember that a sibling has 50% of their sibling's genetics. Thus, in a social animal such as human beings, taking care of your nieces, nephews, siblings, etc. still passes on your lineage.

Regarding the happenings in nature, I look at that as a sort of defect. When a creature is BORN gay, that is nature's way of controlling the population by not allowing reproduction. If a creature (human) makes a decision to be gay, than it is sin.

Those statements are incompatible. You can't say "It is a defect but is necessary in nature."

Meanwhile, there is no choice to be gay. You either are or you are not. Human beings don't choose who we are attracted to - it just kind of happens. What actions you choose to take based on that attraction are certainly choice, but sexuality refers to the innate attraction.

If he commands it in scripture, we can pretty much assume it's His will...

Your personal belief is that all scripture is completely God's will and that translators were also imbued with infallibility.

My belief is different, especially when you consider some of the atrocities that the Bible claims God condoned.

Again, your belief is that God commanded it. You do not know this with absolute certainty unless you are infallible.

Oh, and percentage of kids with gay parents who are gay is the same as straight parents.
That is good news. However i'm SURE that the amount of sympathy those children of gay parents have for gay people is in much greater supply...

...and that would be what I was trying to get at.

Yes, some knowledge of the world is conducive to faith, however, raising children in a Christian household that lives by the standards it teaches will most likely result in children who do not stray from God's will...as opposed to their antithesis secular family.

Unless you are going to argue that we should make it illegal for non-Christians to have children, this line of argument is useless.

Meanwhile, there are Christians, like me, who do not think that homosexuality is a sin any more than menstruation is. Am I to be barred from having children as well?

That is good news. However i'm SURE that the amount of sympathy those children of gay parents have for gay people is in much greater supply...

...and that would be what I was trying to get at.

Oh no! More people might disagree with you!! How horrible that would be!!!

That is good news. However i'm SURE that the amount of sympathy those children of gay parents have for gay people is in much greater supply...

...and that would be what I was trying to get at.
But you too have sympathy for gay people. "Love the sinner, hate the sin?"

That post sounded a tad hypocritical to me.

I didn't make the assumption - I said it could happen. And, of course, you ignore the fact that homosexuals can, and often do, reproduce.

Meanwhile, if we are going with something that is actually possible, it is much, much more unlikely that a single mutation would have the kind of effect you are claiming.

You have to remember that a sibling has 50% of their sibling's genetics. Thus, in a social animal such as human beings, taking care of your nieces, nephews, siblings, etc. still passes on your lineage.

Those statements are incompatible. You can't say "It is a defect but is necessary in nature."

Meanwhile, there is no choice to be gay. You either are or you are not. Human beings don't choose who we are attracted to - it just kind of happens. What actions you choose to take based on that attraction are certainly choice, but sexuality refers to the innate attraction.
Regarding the first half... it isn't really "your' lineage, is it? It's your niece, nephew, sibling, etc.

As for the rest of that, are you saying there is no line between animals and humans?

But you too have sympathy for gay people. "Love the sinner, hate the sin?"

That post sounded a tad hypocritical to me.
I have a sympathy for the person, only because they are ... cursed to such a sin, especially those that have not chosen to be gay.

Beneath their... deformity, i'm sure there is something that biologically and spiritually is more acceptable, and for that they have my sympathy.

I have a sympathy for the person, only because they are ... cursed to such a sin, especially those that have not chosen to be gay.

Beneath their... deformity, i'm sure there is something that biologically and spiritually is more acceptable, and for that they have my sympathy.
Just a friendly reminder - people would be much less likely to get upset if you stopped the "cursed" and "deformity" rhetoric.

You still haven't responded to my original argument.

By the way, is a homosexual who devoted their entire life to helping the poor going to hell?

And, your interpretation of the Bible on homosexuality is flat-out wrong. Read the links I posted.

Ihatevacations']The tall people one could set off idiots

try
"being around gay people will make you gay, like hanging around schizophrenic people makes you schizophrenic"

OMG the horror the horror. hahahaha
:D

Regarding the first half... it isn't really "your' lineage, is it? It's your niece, nephew, sibling, etc.

However, your niece, nephew, sibling will share genetic traits with you, as you have a common lineage. Altruism is a major part of behavioral biology in social animals.

As for the rest of that, are you saying there is no line between animals and humans?

From a biological standpoint, humans are animals. We are social animals and display many of the same traits as other social animals.

Except that the scriptural basis is weak at best:
http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bib...osexuality.html

http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html

http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights.../bible-gay.html

Try reading the original Hebrew/Aramaic.


Yes, I'm well aware of the issues regarding 1 Corinthians and Leviticus. However, Romans 1 is quite clear in all translations.

Regarding the first half... it isn't really "your' lineage, is it? It's your niece, nephew, sibling, etc.

Your sibling has as much in common with you, genetically, as your biological offspring would have. Your (biological) nieces and nephews will be as genetically related to you as your own grandchildren would be. If the goal, biologically, is to get your genetic material passed on, then you will gain as much by rearing and helping biological siblings as you would in producing your own young.

In animals, we see many cases in which this is upheld. In many species there have been numerous documented cases where the risks of forming a new family will outweigh the potential benefits (due to various environmental or predator concerns), and an individual will choose not to reproduce, and will instead remain in their parents' "nest" to help rear siblings.


As for the rest of that, are you saying there is no line between animals and humans?
Humans are animals. Our species is distinct from other animal species, just as other animal species are distinct from each other, but we are still animals.

Regarding the happenings in nature, I look at that as a sort of defect. When a creature is BORN gay, that is nature's way of controlling the population by not allowing reproduction.
Let me help clarify something for you: nature is not conscious, and "nature" will never act to "control population" in the way you describe. Ever. Natural selection simply does not work that way. If a trait is not desirable, if it reduces reproductive fitness, it will be selected OUT of the gene pool. If homosexuality actually reduced reproductive fitness (as you suggest) then it simply would not exist in natural species. That is not the case, and, instead, research has proven repeatedly that homosexual behavior exists where it exists because it enhances reproductive success.

Homosexuality is not a defect, according to nature. If you choose to believe it is a sin for humans to express homosexuality then that is a personal choice on your part, but you should make an effort to avoid misunderstanding or misrepresenting the scientific facts on the subject.

Surely the best way to defend marriage would be to ban divorce?

that might actually work, for only in the past few hunderds saw the bannishment of araniged marrige in western soseity, and is still in pratice in some counrties.

Love is not as 'real' as the other emtions that humans have. it can be created and destoried aslong as we are willing to try. Sex on to it's self creates a subconscious desire to care and protect one's partner.

long as you and your partner are willing to try, a relationship is more that likely to succed. just don't take your anger to bed, and don't say no to sex just because "you don't feel like it" your simpley forgeting how good sex feels, and denining your relationship the binefits it brings.

Yes, I'm well aware of the issues regarding 1 Corinthians and Leviticus. However, Romans 1 is quite clear in all translations.
So you have one quote in a questionable book from questionable authors that has a questionable translation
And you are using that to justify disenfranchising a whole group of people and deny them equal rights under the law
Wow

So you have one quote in a questionable book from questionable authors that has a questionable translation
And you are using that to justify disenfranchising a whole group of people and deny them equal rights under the law
Wow


Many things in the Bible that we follow are stated on only one occasion. Why would this be any different? Also, controversy over two specific versus does not equate to them being wrong.

Yes, I'm well aware of the issues regarding 1 Corinthians and Leviticus. However, Romans 1 is quite clear in all translations.
No. It's not.

Greek, like Hebrew, is a much more descriptive language than English. As an example, while we have the word "love", Greek has agape, storge, philia, and eros - each describing a different form of love. Further, meanings of words can change over generations. A typical example would be if someone were referred to as a "space cadet" thirty years ago, likely they were employed by NASA. Today, the same phrase would be an insult. Thus, it is easy to understand why words in the ancient Greek could be misinterpreted, as are the terms "men who lie with men", "abusers of mankind", "homosexual", and "pervert" in the above referenced scriptures. The two words in Greek used in the above scriptures that are commonly mistranslated as such are arsenokoites and malakos. Bible scholars now believe arsenokoites to mean "male temple prostitute", as mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures at Deut. 23: 17-18. The actual meaning of this word, however, has been lost in history, as it was a slang term which, literally translated, means "lift bed".
The Greek malakos, literally translated, means "spineless" (some linguistics scholars translate it as "limp", or "coward").
What is important to note here is that both of these words are nouns. In ancient Greek, there is no known noun to define homosexuality. It was always expressed as a verb. Just as in the Hebrew scriptures examined above, the Greek scriptures make reference to those who engaged in idolatrous practices, much of which centered around sex in return for favors. Neither the homosexual nor the direct idea of homosexuality appears anywhere in these passages. Had the writer intended to make a clear point about condemnation of gays, the Greek verb would have been utilized rather than the above-referenced nouns which are directly related to cowardice and idolatry.

But what of Paul's statement at Romans 1 where "females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust towards one another"? The answer lies in Paul's words in verses 22 & 23: "Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things." Obviously, Paul's reference here is to idolatry. As mentioned above in examining the Hebrew scriptures, many pagan idol-worshipping religions of Paul's day taught that by granting sexual favors to the high priest, the one giving the favor would be rewarded with fertility of crops and offspring. It then becomes clear that Paul's reference was not to same-sex, loving relationships, but his condemnations focused on heterosexuals who, going against their own sexual nature, granted sexual favors to the leaders of pagan religions in expectation of reward by the pagan gods.

Many things in the Bible that we follow are stated on only one occasion. Why would this be any different? Also, controversy over two specific versus does not equate to them being wrong.
No it doesn’t but it does cast doubt … seems like going way to far out on a limb for me if I was god and the quote you put forth were indeed what I said I would still be like “woah you justified what based on THAT!?”

*snip*

Homosexuality is not a defect, according to nature. If you choose to believe it is a sin for humans to express homosexuality then that is a personal choice on your part, but you should make an effort to avoid misunderstanding or misrepresenting the scientific facts on the subject.

Are you SURE you want people to start talking about scientific facts on the subject? Aren't you afraid that someone is going to start throwing statistics that show chemically imbalanced persons who suffer from physical depression are more likely than other people to both attempt self-medication via narcotic drugs and try homosexuality lifestyles? In fact, couldn't the argument be made that suicidally depressed people are more likely to be Gay than the non-suicidal population? How many wouldn’t have tried homosexuality in the first place if they were never chemically proned to depression to begin with?

Sure you can say society's oppression of them causes the depression, but you can't prove that they're depression didn't itself cause the desire to try homosexual behaviors in an all out bid to TRY and find comfort in a world they perceive as cold and hard and they are afraid continuing in suicidal depression without trying anything and everything before killing oneself.

Who 'chooses' to use narcotic drugs, and sniffs paint and live a life of a street bum searching endlessly for their next 'fix' except those that also suffer from manic depression, or other clinically verifiable schizophrenia?

What percentage of the non-homosexual population regularly uses illicit drugs for recreational or self medication purposes? What percentage of the homosexual community does it? What percentage of the so-called 'normal’ population stops using illegal drugs at middle age or sooner ~ what percentage of the homosexual community does it as well? These are scientific questions you might not want answered, eh?

Just food for thought... Or logs for the fire, your choice :D

Are you SURE you want people to start talking about scientific facts on the subject? Aren't you afraid that someone is going to start throwing statistics that show chemically imbalanced persons who suffer from physical depression are more likely than other people to both attempt self-medication via narcotic drugs and try homosexuality lifestyles? In fact, couldn't the argument be made that suicidally depressed people are more likely to be Gay than the non-suicidal population? How many wouldn’t have tried homosexuality in the first place if they were never chemically proned to depression to begin with?

Sure you can say society's oppression of them causes the depression, but you can't prove that they're depression caused the desire to try homosexual behaviors in an all out bid to TRY and find comfort in a world they perceive as cold and hard and they are afraid continuing in suicidal depression without trying anything and everything before killing oneself.

Who 'chooses' to use narcotic drugs, and sniffs paint and live a life of a street bum searching endlessly for their next 'fix' except those that also suffer from manic depression, or other clinically verifiable schizophrenia?

What percentage of the non-homosexual population regularly uses illicit drugs for recreational or self medication purposes? What percentage of the homosexual community does it? What percentage of the so-called 'normal’ population stops using illegal drugs at middle age or sooner ~ what percentage of the homosexual community does it as well? These are scientific questions you might not want answered, eh?

Just food for thought... Or logs for the fire, your choice :D

Well, making a bad assumption that being gay is a choice, if being gay makes them happy what does it matter? Would you rather they do what the religious dogma wants them to do and be miserable for the rest of their lives and possibly commit suicide or do worse? If people are so effed up to begin with and being gay is the one thing that eleviates the depression and anger and what not, then what is the big deal? We all want to be happy, at least I hope we all do :S.

Are you SURE you want people to start talking about scientific facts on the subject? Aren't you afraid that someone is going to start throwing statistics that show chemically imbalanced persons who suffer from physical depression are more likely than other people to both attempt self-medication via narcotic drugs and try homosexuality lifestyles? In fact, couldn't the argument be made that suicidally depressed people are more likely to be Gay than the non-suicidal population? How many wouldn’t have tried homosexuality in the first place if they were never chemically proned to depression to begin with?
Ever thought that it's because of people like you that Gay people are statistically more likely to commit suicide/be depressed?

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts


If it were referring to ritualistic prostitution, then why would it refer to the sex acts themselves (not the reason for committing them) as shameful and unnatural? Referring to abandoning natural relations with women in favor of men as indecent, regardless of whether performed in prostitution or not, can only be an inference of the sin of the act.

In fact, couldn't the argument be made that suicidally depressed people are more likely to be Gay than the non-suicidal population?

Possibly. So ?

Possibly. So ?

Well, if SO, then there is reason to believe that it can be treated...

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Not everyone believes in God, so why should everyone have to adhere to the values those that believe in God say God sanctified. I'm not anti-religious in fact I am semi-religious, but I don't believe in forcing my values on others.

Well, if SO, then there is reason to believe that it can be treated...
I am sure we could find a way to “treat” heterosexuality too … does that mean it will be the best choice? (just because depression is does not mean homosexuality is the same)

If it were referring to ritualistic prostitution, then why would it refer to the sex acts themselves (not the reason for committing them) as shameful and unnatural? Referring to abandoning natural relations with women in favor of men as indecent, regardless of whether performed in prostitution or not, can only be an inference of the sin of the act.
The reason it's sin in the context of the passages is that heterosexuals were acting against their natural impulses and giving homosexual favors to priests. Taking that train of thought to its logical extent, denying anyone's nature is a sin. So forbidding homosexuals to pursue their natural impulses is a sin, according to the Bible!

It's easy to say why gay marriage is bad. It's because it's wrong! No way around it. Argue whatever way you want to. It's just not the way decent people live! It's just flat out wrong!

It's easy to say why gay marriage is bad. It's because it's wrong! No way around it. Argue whatever way you want to. It's just not the way decent people live! It's just flat out wrong!

So your whole argument is tanamount to gay marriage is wrong because I say so. Wonderful...

So your whole argument is tanamount to gay marriage is wrong because I say so. Wonderful...

Kinda like the KKK, "Black people are evil because I say so...", or Hitler "Jews are evil because I say so", or gee, what else could we bring up that fills this "because I say so" ideal?

Kinda like the KKK, "Black people are evil because I say so...", or Hitler "Jews are evil because I say so", or gee, what else could we bring up that fills this "because I say so" ideal?

The worst thing that could ever be utterd from a human mouth, "Finish your broccoli."

So your whole argument is tanamount to gay marriage is wrong because I say so. Wonderful...

God said it's wrong, pal. Not me.
Also, is the word you're looking for "TANTAMOUNT" by any chance, or have we created a new "on-line" language since yesterday?

It's easy to say why gay marriage is bad. It's because it's wrong! No way around it. Argue whatever way you want to. It's just not the way decent people live! It's just flat out wrong!

Then don't get into a gay marriage and you can feel right in knowing you didn't do something wrong.



Ain't nobody's business if ya do.

God does not write laws, mankind does. Making more laws only makes for more criminals.

God said it's wrong, pal. Not me.

Right, and because of that we really need to make it illegal, even though not everyone believes that's true. :rolleyes:

Also, is the word you're looking for "TANTAMOUNT" by any chance, or have we created a new "on-line" language since yesterday?

Yes, because you've never misspelled words before. :rolleyes:

Are you SURE you want people to start talking about scientific facts on the subject? Aren't you afraid that someone is going to start throwing statistics that show chemically imbalanced persons who suffer from physical depression are more likely than other people to both attempt self-medication via narcotic drugs and try homosexuality lifestyles? In fact, couldn't the argument be made that suicidally depressed people are more likely to be Gay than the non-suicidal population? How many wouldn’t have tried homosexuality in the first place if they were never chemically proned to depression to begin with?

Sure you can say society's oppression of them causes the depression, but you can't prove that they're depression didn't itself cause the desire to try homosexual behaviors in an all out bid to TRY and find comfort in a world they perceive as cold and hard and they are afraid continuing in suicidal depression without trying anything and everything before killing oneself.

Who 'chooses' to use narcotic drugs, and sniffs paint and live a life of a street bum searching endlessly for their next 'fix' except those that also suffer from manic depression, or other clinically verifiable schizophrenia?

What percentage of the non-homosexual population regularly uses illicit drugs for recreational or self medication purposes? What percentage of the homosexual community does it? What percentage of the so-called 'normal’ population stops using illegal drugs at middle age or sooner ~ what percentage of the homosexual community does it as well? These are scientific questions you might not want answered, eh?

Just food for thought... Or logs for the fire, your choice :D

Please throw out these statistics, including source please. ;)

Well, if SO, then there is reason to believe that it can be treated...

That what can be treated ? Saying that being depressed can make one gay does not offer new ways to treat depression... and saying that being gay can in some cases be the result of an illness does not mean gayness itself is something that should be remedied...

Well, making a bad assumption that being gay is a choice, if being gay makes them happy what does it matter? Would you rather they do what the religious dogma wants them to do and be miserable for the rest of their lives and possibly commit suicide or do worse? If people are so effed up to begin with and being gay is the one thing that eleviates the depression and anger and what not, then what is the big deal? We all want to be happy, at least I hope we all do :S.


IF, they are happy, then your point is valid. IF taking narcotics and paint fumes makes the street bum 'happy' who are we to complain?

LOL :D Yeah, they're just a bunch of happy go luckies those self-medicated types are...


Fine, then what happened to their argument that they 'couldn't help it' or, 'who would choose this?' If they can be 'fixed,’ why would they fight it?

Perhaps there is more to it than that? Perhaps pride and choice really do come into the equation?

Personally, I think that gay marriage is a great idea.

At the very least, it means that officially, none of us guys will ever have to marry Rosie O'Donnell.

The reason it's sin in the context of the passages is that heterosexuals were acting against their natural impulses and giving homosexual favors to priests. Taking that train of thought to its logical extent, denying anyone's nature is a sin. So forbidding homosexuals to pursue their natural impulses is a sin, according to the Bible!


In context, it was saying that homosexuality itself is a sin. It condemned the act of homosexual relations itself, not individual nature. Or else, would it not have specified that men were not abandoning the natural use of the women if they were homosexuals? I don't see where it says "and men burned in their unnatural lust for women." Taken in context, it is very clearly a condemnation of homosexuality AND temple prostitution.