NationStates Jolt Archive

FAirly simple question, but why do don't people like gay marriage?
Are gays evil/sinful/stupid/second class citizens, or it is because marriage is a religious institution.

I'm not gay, but don't have a problem with them. Vote for options

I personally see nothing wrong with it. Gays are people too, and deserve the same rights as straights. (hence my sig)

I think that people who are afraid of/ just don't want it are either wierd or afraid of change. Word to the wise: Change is a good thing.

And dude, I think the third option on your pole is a bit excessive. Not to mention horrible. No one better pick it, or they'll be stoned to death.
*gathers stones and slingshot*

People who have a problem with gay marraige tend to fall into two categories

1) They are religious and think its a sin
2) They are ill-informed and are afraid of what they don't want to think about.

Let's use the Golden Rule.

Treat others as you'd want them to treat you...

Now, would you want gay people telling you that you can't marry women?

Let's use the Golden Rule.

Treat others as you'd want them to treat you...

Now, would you want gay people telling you that you can't marry women?
Funny how so many people who purport to be christians neglect that bit of the bible, isn't it? I mean, it's not like Jesus put a gay exception into the Golden Rule or anything.

Let's use the Golden Rule.

Treat others as you'd want them to treat you...

Now, would you want gay people telling you that you can't marry women?

The difference is, men have been marrying women since the beginning of time, whereas this whole "gay marriage" thing is a recent innovation. Furthermore, gays would never be able to dictate the terms of marriage because they're a tiny minority, and didn't have much clout in society.

Funny how so many people who purport to be christians neglect that bit of the bible, isn't it? I mean, it's not like Jesus put a gay exception into the Golden Rule or anything.

Do you think Jesus would have approved of homosexuality? He may have brought a message of love and forgiveness, but make no mistake: He wasn't giving a free pass to just anyone to get into Heaven.

The difference is, men have been marrying women since the beginning of time, whereas this whole "gay marriage" thing is a recent innovation. Furthermore, gays would never be able to dictate the terms of marriage because they're a tiny minority, and didn't have much clout in society.

(Ugh. I told myself I wouldn't get involved in yet another gay rights debate, but...)

So, the Golden Rule has been redefined to mean "Treat others the way you would have them treat you unless they don't have the societal clout to fight back, in which case, do whatever the hell you want"?

The funny thing is that Jesus even quite specifically preached acceptance, tolerance, and love for outcast groups in society and likewise specifically suggested that groups traditionally viewed as "bad" might contain members more moral and godly than those traditionally viewed as "good"...

FAirly simple question, but why do don't people like gay marriage?
Are gays evil/sinful/stupid/second class citizens, or it is because marriage is a religious institution.

I'm not gay, but don't have a problem with them. Vote for options

Marriage is a social institution; not a religious one (If one thinks it's religious; why do you get a license from your state?)

That being said; I oppose the use of marriage in its present governmental sense; and would like to see the system returned to its "roots" as a private, as opposed to public, social institution; to which the government does not involve itself in; except in contests brought through civil suit...

That being said; I myself am not gay. I also do (on the other hand) consider Homosexuality a sin..... I however do not believe the government has a right to interfere with marriage unless contest is brought by parties involved... And that no party outside of those involved in the relationship have a right to oversight of that relationship...

These threads are really getting out of control. Can't you look a few pages into the forum and use one of the other threads on the same thing? There seems to be a new one (probably more like three or four) of these threads a day.

I'll be honest: I have a problem with homosexuality. I can't say why, because when I search for it there isn't any real logic behind it; it's a gut feeling I have that says to me, "this is just wrong", in both the moral and biological sense of the word, so to speak.

That said, I recognise that such a view, while it is not going to be changed and while it's somewhat valid, is not suitable for use as a basis of any sort of legality. Thus, though I object to homosexuality and homosexual marriage, for reasons basically unknown even to myself, I suppress that instinctive thought; the law must be based on a neutral and logical view.

I'll be honest: I have a problem with homosexuality. I can't say why, because when I search for it there isn't any real logic behind it; it's a gut feeling I have that says to me, "this is just wrong", in both the moral and biological sense of the word, so to speak.

That said, I recognise that such a view, while it is not going to be changed and while it's somewhat valid, is not suitable for use as a basis of any sort of legality. Thus, though I object to homosexuality and homosexual marriage, for reasons basically unknown even to myself, I suppress that instinctive thought; the law must be based on a neutral and logical view.
Respect!

If everyone could calmly think about things like you, the world would no doubt be a much more pleasant place to live. I thank you on behalf of minorities everywhere.

I'm curious though. Do you dislike homo's & bi's? I mean, would you be friends with one?

Gay marragies: HISSS!1! evil....

I dont have a problem with them.

My only problem with Homosexuals is...who the hell would get the last name?

I personally see nothing wrong with it. Gays are people too, and deserve the same rights as straights. (hence my sig)

I think that people who are afraid of/ just don't want it are either wierd or afraid of change. Word to the wise: Change is a good thing.

And dude, I think the third option on your pole is a bit excessive. Not to mention horrible. No one better pick it, or they'll be stoned to death.
*gathers stones and slingshot*

Scary thing is the the Bible actually orders stoning as a punishment for some offences. Check out Deuteronomy 22, every second one is a stoning!

Talking in class? You better believe that's a stoning!

FAirly simple question, but why do don't people like gay marriage?
Are gays evil/sinful/stupid/second class citizens, or it is because marriage is a religious institution.

I'm not gay, but don't have a problem with them. Vote for options

I don't have a problem with gay marriage.

Canada City']My only problem with Homosexuals is...who the hell would get the last name?

There's the same problem (if you can even call it a problem, it's not much of one) with straight marriages now, since some women (myself included) don't like to change their names. If either party wants to, that's fine, if not, that's fine too.

I'll swap the term marriage with civil union, and have no issues gay or straight.

Marriage is a religious term--government shouldn't have any dealings with it at all.

Most religions are against same sex unions. I say, let the religions be the way they're going to be about it, since marriage is a religious institution. I don't agree with those religions, but hey, it's not my call.

I'll swap the term marriage with civil union, and have no issues gay or straight.

Marriage is a religious term--government shouldn't have any dealings with it at all.

Most religions are against same sex unions. I say, let the religions be the way they're going to be about it, since marriage is a religious institution. I don't agree with those religions, but hey, it's not my call.
Even assuming it is a purely religious thing (which there is evidence it was secular before religious)
What religion owns it?

Why can not my religion marry me and my gay partner if they wanted to?

I'll swap the term marriage with civil union, and have no issues gay or straight.

Marriage is a religious term--government shouldn't have any dealings with it at all.

Most religions are against same sex unions. I say, let the religions be the way they're going to be about it, since marriage is a religious institution. I don't agree with those religions, but hey, it's not my call.

I say, fuck what the religions want. They shouldn't have the monopoly on a word just because they are whinging the loudest.

I'll swap the term marriage with civil union, and have no issues gay or straight.

Marriage is a religious term--government shouldn't have any dealings with it at all.

Most religions are against same sex unions. I say, let the religions be the way they're going to be about it, since marriage is a religious institution. I don't agree with those religions, but hey, it's not my call.

Marriage is not a religious institution.... It's a social institution...

I say, fuck what the religions want. They shouldn't have the monopoly on a word just because they are whinging the loudest.
Exactly even contained within the united states marriage has been a civil and legal contract sense its inception

Option 2 is bullshit. It's for people who hate homosexuals, but are too politically correct to admit it.

People who have a problem with gay marraige tend to fall into two categories

1) They are religious and think its a sin
2) They are ill-informed and are afraid of what they don't want to think about.

what about the people who think that homosexuality is self destructive of the human species, therefore we should kill them so that they don't cause more destruction of the species. plus, high penalties mean less people would practice it.

what about the people who think that homosexuality is self destructive of the human species, therefore we should kill them so that they don't cause more destruction of the species. plus, high penalties mean less people would practice it.
Fall under option two :p

what about the people who think that homosexuality is self destructive of the human species, therefore we should kill them so that they don't cause more destruction of the species. plus, high penalties mean less people would practice it.

When they can proove it is self-destructive to the human race and then proove it's worse than the problems actual over-population will cause then maybe they will have a point. Except that eating McDonalds is pretty self-destructive too but I don't see fat people getting fined or having their rights limitied.

As for the penalties, I hardly think a fine is gonna scare someone off from expressing their sexuality anymore than the current hatred, abuse and intolerance they have to deal with.

Fall under option two :p
well, how's that ill informed? inform me, please.

Homosexuality violates natural selection, makes no sense, and is a danger to our young people.

Even assuming it is a purely religious thing (which there is evidence it was secular before religious)
What religion owns it?

Why can not my religion marry me and my gay partner if they wanted to?

Your religion (or anyone else's) can. If it's in their doctrine. I just said most of the major ones don't go for it. I'm not against it. I was just saying that religions are religions, and the first amendment guarantees that the government can't tell them how to practice. If a religions says no, then no marriage. If they say yes, then yes to marriage.

To keep government out of religion (and vice-versa), I'd say keep the term and institution of marriage out of government. Leave it at civil unions, and don't allow the confusing swap (since you are correct that marriages were first civil, and not religious, but it's been so long and the definition has changed) to hit the already confused and controlling government. That way, Georgie boy can't say who can or can't give vows to each other.

Homosexuality violates natural selection, makes no sense, and is a danger to our young people.

Any proof to back up those claims?

Your religion (or anyone else's) can. If it's in their doctrine. I just said most of the major ones don't go for it. I'm not against it. I was just saying that religions are religions, and the first amendment guarantees that the government can't tell them how to practice. If a religions says no, then no marriage. If they say yes, then yes to marriage.

To keep government out of religion (and vice-versa), I'd say keep the term and institution of marriage out of government. Leave it at civil unions, and don't allow the confusing swap (since you are correct that marriages were first civil, and not religious, but it's been so long and the definition has changed) to hit the already confused and controlling government. That way, Georgie boy can't say who can or can't give vows to each other.
It’s a word … Marriage … in the English language has been both a social and religious institution from its outset

Religions have no more right to the English word then the rest of us do, they have no more right to declare who is married then the government. It is a word and owned by no one, religions do not have sole domain on what it can or can not be.

I see no reason to change the name of the social institution then making the religions change the name of their religious institution

I say, fuck what the religions want. They shouldn't have the monopoly on a word just because they are whinging the loudest.

Really? In the US, the term liberal doesn't mean what it does to Europeans, or even Canadians. It means borderline socialist here.

You have to go with the general populace's definition of the age. For the last 1500 years (at least in western cultures), marriage has been used to describe a religious ceremony more often than not.

I don't like the fact that irregardless has found its way into dicitonaries, but hey, I can't really stop the mass from influencing definition and creation of terms.

The point is, that yes, those who whine the most do create the perceived definition of the day--the newspapers do it all the time with things like "assault weapons" (devices that don't actually exist).

Homosexuality violates natural selection, makes no sense, and is a danger to our young people.
And yet there are studies that seem to show that having a certain amount of non continuously reproducing adults to care and protect are a good thing for a group.

Exactly even contained within the united states marriage has been a civil and legal contract sense its inception

That's because, like it or not, the US is a coutry based on religious values--so of course they are intermingled. That bit about the first amendment not messing with religion? It's so government wouldn't mess with religion--it's not to stop religion messing with government. I don't agree with it, but that's the intent behind it.

Homosexuality violates natural selection, makes no sense, and is a danger to our young people.

Modern medicine, technology, agriculture, idustrialised food production, clothes even.....these things all 'violate' natural selection.

So you'll say that they are different, as homosexuality actually causes a lower population? The fact that many areas of the planet are becoming over populated and resources are becoming strained, lower reproduction rates are somewhat beneficial. So really, increased homosexuality rates could be seen as a step forward in terms of evolution and an advantage to the human race in regards to natural selection, i.e. less people to compete with for resources.

A danger to our young people? Explain how. Cars are a danger to young people, should we ban them?

what about the people who think that homosexuality is self destructive of the human species, therefore we should kill them so that they don't cause more destruction of the species. plus, high penalties mean less people would practice it.

1. How is it "self-destructive" ? There are 6 billion people on this planet, even if 1/2 of them were homosexual; it still would not act detrimentally to the population.

2. That assumes it's "self-destructive".

3. Which is why all the past high-penalties have prevented people from practicing it, right?

It’s a word … Marriage … in the English language has been both a social and religious institution from its outset

Religions have no more right to the English word then the rest of us do, they have no more right to declare who is married then the government. It is a word and owned by no one, religions do not have sole domain on what it can or can not be.

I see no reason to change the name of the social institution then making the religions change the name of their religious institution

You're right, no one has ownership over a word. However, if you can't get everyone to agree on the definition, you will never have understanding.

The majority of the western cultures have placed religion on the term marriage. It, more often than not, gives the impression of a religious ceremony of some sort.

The majority tends to determine the meaning of a word, for good or ill.

Respect!

If everyone could calmly think about things like you, the world would no doubt be a much more pleasant place to live. I thank you on behalf of minorities everywhere.

I'm curious though. Do you dislike homo's & bi's? I mean, would you be friends with one?

Why thankyou - although I should point out that, right now, ANY Muslim coming up to me is going to be getting angry looks. Yes, I'm British, white, patriotic and bloody angry (though when I think about it I acknowledge that not all Muslims support this in the least). But anyway, enough of that.

I dislike homosexuals, bisexuals etc. for what they practise, but not for who they are; I've at least two or three gay friends, because I like them as people and can ignore their sexual practices as a result. It's almost as though I mentally isolate homosexuality, and treat it more as a disease than as a way of living.

Homosexuality violates natural selection, makes no sense, and is a danger to our young people.

1. If it "violates" natural-selection; that means it would die out.....

2. Why doesn't it make sense?

3. How is it a danger to young people?

You're right, no one has ownership over a word. However, if you can't get everyone to agree on the definition, you will never have understanding.

The majority of the western cultures have placed religion on the term marriage. It, more often than not, gives the impression of a religious ceremony of some sort.

The majority tends to determine the meaning of a word, for good or ill.
True … and I am not trying to fight over the little stuff its just how I see it

Just so the applied term can be applied to all equitably (IE social contract for EVERYONE is something like civil union with the optional title of married … and that no religions are discriminate in passing out the term)

Though I wonder what will happen to us atheists(agnostics as well)? What if we want to be married?

I have no problem with gays, I think that they are as much people as anyone. They deserve rights, but as far as marriage goes I'd say no. I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Gay people do deserve the benefits of married couples though. I think that they should have there own "binding" relationship other than marriage, and still have the same rights as married people.

It amazes me sometimes how closed minded people can be. Being discriminatory towards gays is just stupid. It's not like they're going to hurt you or something. My sister goes to the University of Notr Dame in Indiana and there, after being ranked the least excepting school of gays, made shirts saying"Gay? So What." One day I wore the shirt and a guy I knew was disgusted. He couldn't believe that I would wear something like that. He, like many others, is a close-minded "homophobe." That opinion of gay people is shocking to me and utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

Really? In the US, the term liberal doesn't mean what it does to Europeans, or even Canadians. It means borderline socialist here.

You have to go with the general populace's definition of the age. For the last 1500 years (at least in western cultures), marriage has been used to describe a religious ceremony more often than not.

I don't like the fact that irregardless has found its way into dicitonaries, but hey, I can't really stop the mass from influencing definition of terms.

The point is, that yes, those who whine the most do create the perceived definition of the day--the newspapers do it all the time with things like "assault weapons" (devices that don't actually exist).

Ii not about how things ARE or how they where for the past 1500 years. Things can change and when the current system is wrong they SHOULD change.

Also, because marriage has been a religious ceremony more often than not does not make it a relgious definition as it has also been applied to plenty of non-religious ceremonies. You can't deny the use of the word to one non-religious civil union [gay marriage] and allow it to be used for another [athiest marriage].

Really? In the US, the term liberal doesn't mean what it does to Europeans, or even Canadians. It means borderline socialist here.

You have to go with the general populace's definition of the age. For the last 1500 years (at least in western cultures), marriage has been used to describe a religious ceremony more often than not.

I don't like the fact that irregardless has found its way into dicitonaries, but hey, I can't really stop the mass from influencing definition and creation of terms.

The point is, that yes, those who whine the most do create the perceived definition of the day--the newspapers do it all the time with things like "assault weapons" (devices that don't actually exist).

"Marriage" from "marrier"; Old French adopted in Middle-English; "to intertwine two ropes in a manner to which it becomes a single rope"; used as a nautical term.

I have no problem with gays, I think that they are as much people as anyone. They deserve rights, but as far as marriage goes I'd say no. I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Gay people do deserve the benefits of married couples though. I think that they should have there own "binding" relationship other than marriage, and still have the same rights as married people.


Which "god" creates this "sacred" bond? (using the word implies a god ordained act) which god ordained it?

My god ordains gay marriage … he says that a man and a man or woman and a woman can have a sacred union as well

What makes your god better then mine?

Why thankyou - although I should point out that, right now, ANY Muslim coming up to me is going to be getting angry looks. Yes, I'm British, white, patriotic and bloody angry (though when I think about it I acknowledge that not all Muslims support this in the least). But anyway, enough of that.

I dislike homosexuals, bisexuals etc. for what they practise, but not for who they are; I've at least two or three gay friends, because I like them as people and can ignore their sexual practices as a result. It's almost as though I mentally isolate homosexuality, and treat it more as a disease than as a way of living.

I kind of lie with you on this issue. I go to an arts school, which is practically a breeding ground for homosexuals, and I am constantly surrounded or in interaction with gays. I have no problems with the character of said homosexuals (though for the most part they're radically left-wing ;) ), but I definitely feel there's something wrong about two males sucking face. I'm not religious, it's just unsettling when you hear two guys talking about other men in a sexual way. I don't like the idea of gay marriage because I think if they were allowed to be joined in union, it would kind of serve as a promotion of homosexuality, an endorsement.

True … and I am not trying to fight over the little stuff its just how I see it

Just so the applied term can be applied to all equitably (IE social contract for EVERYONE is something like civil union with the optional title of married … and that no religions are discriminate in passing out the term)

Though I wonder what will happen to us atheists(agnostics as well)? What if we want to be married?

Well, if the trend is that marriage is religious, we're rather out of luck. But hey, I've always known that when I promise something to someone, I'm following through on it, so the actual institution of marriage really hasn't been that important to me.

But marriages and civil unions do confer some benefits (not really in agreement with the government on that either).

You COULD create your own religion (but being atheist, that's kind of difficult) to allow your beliefs. Can even get tax-exempt status!

So you'll say that they are different, as homosexuality actually causes a lower population? The fact that many areas of the planet are becoming over populated and resources are becoming strained, lower reproduction rates are somewhat beneficial. So really, increased homosexuality rates could be seen as a step forward in terms of evolution and an advantage to the human race in regards to natural selection, i.e. less people to compete with for resources.



And how do people know that homosexuality isn't nature's way of controlling populations? Without gays, all animals would reproduce much faster (homosexuality isn't exclusive to humans, of course), and reosurces would be draining even faster.

That's because, like it or not, the US is a coutry based on religious values--so of course they are intermingled. That bit about the first amendment not messing with religion? It's so government wouldn't mess with religion--it's not to stop religion messing with government. I don't agree with it, but that's the intent behind it.

Actually, it does stop religion, to an extent, meddling with government.... Government is powerless to endorse or promote any specific religion or religious institution or doctrine.... Therefore; as much as a church meddles with; it cannot grant power to the government that it does not possess in the first place...

That's like saying the government can't meddle with free-speech; but I can by messing with the Government, and making it do it..... The government simply lacks the proper legal authority as such; and can't do it legally; regardless who is "meddling"...

Religious institutions are infact social institutions; Marriage is social, and not directly religious; A church can have "marriage" but it cannot enforce it's own marrital views outside of its own religious community (read Congregation) by meddling with Government; as government, itself, lacks the legal authority to enforce religious discipline of a particular group or groups; to those not in or members of that group.

I am just as much against the idea of the Government enforcement upon religious institutions regarding their particular marrital ceremonies; as I am against the idea of any particular; or number of religious institutions using the government to enforce their particular views/definitions of marriage upon the general populace at large (with ammounts to nothing more than using the Government as an enforcement arm of the Religious Institution(s))

We just had an indepth discussion about this on another forum, and I've come to one conclusion:

There is no rational, logical or practical reason to oppose gay marriage or homosexuals in general. Those that do so are doing so out of fear, selfishness or they are simply bizarrely misinformed and ignorant.

There is no other way of looking at it, despite the arguments to the contrary.

I've at least two or three gay friends

sniggers

homosexuality does show signs of a illness with an attraction to the same sex and little to no interest in the correct sex which is an only be explained as due to hormones and/or some sort of mental to trauma

I think we should not allow gay marriage due to the fact that you want to discourage homosexuality especially in children

on another point homosexuals are not economical because when they can no longer work they have produced no children to pay for all there benefits so it is our kids that will pay for them thus our nation becomes weaker

sniggers

homosexuality does show signs of a illness with an attraction to the same sex and little to no interest in the correct sex which is an only be explained as due to hormones and/or some sort of mental to trauma

I think we should not allow gay marriage due to the fact that you want to discourage homosexuality especially in children

on another point homosexuals are not economical because when they can no longer work they have produced no children to pay for all there benefits so it is our kids that will pay for them thus our nation becomes weaker
So people are baby factories … wonderfull :rolleyes:

We just had an indepth discussion about this on another forum, and I've come to one conclusion:

There is no rational, logical or practical reason to oppose gay marriage or homosexuals in general. Those that do so are doing so out of fear, selfishness or they are simply bizarrely misinformed and ignorant.

There is no other way of looking at it, despite the arguments to the contrary.

and that forum would be?

Actually, it does stop religion, to an extent, meddling with government.... Government is powerless to endorse or promote any specific religion or religious institution or doctrine.... Therefore; as much as a church meddles with; it cannot grant power to the government that it does not possess in the first place...

That's like saying the government can't meddle with free-speech; but I can by messing with the Government, and making it do it..... The government simply lacks the proper legal authority as such; and can't do it legally; regardless who is "meddling"...

Religious institutions are infact social institutions; Marriage is social, and not directly religious; A church can have "marriage" but it cannot enforce it's own marrital views outside of its own religious community (read Congregation) by meddling with Government; as government, itself, lacks the legal authority to enforce religious discipline of a particular group or groups; to those not in or members of that group.

I am just as much against the idea of the Government enforcement upon religious institutions regarding their particular marrital ceremonies; as I am against the idea of any particular; or number of religious institutions using the government to enforce their particular views/definitions of marriage upon the general populace at large (with ammounts to nothing more than using the Government as an enforcement arm of the Religious Institution(s))

One question: What is on the US dollar? "In God We Trust"--and I can guarantee that it's the Christian god, not any other.

My point is, the Christian values were as much a part of the creation of the laws of the US as anything. Religion is indeed in the government. It's not supposed to value one religion over another, but it most certainly does.

Instead of trying to return the definition of marriage to what it used to be, the easier solution would be to leave marraige with the religions and just stick with civil union for the government.

I'm just trying to work with what's out there today.

Homosexuality violates natural selection, makes no sense, and is a danger to our young people.

Sigh... Let's look at facts.

Homosexuality is genetic, and has survived all the prejudice humans can throw at it. Yeah, they can't breed, but nature has kept them cropping up for all of time. Clearly nature is fine with their existence.

It makes perfect sense; if more people were capable of reproducing, then populations would soar. The ancient greeks were smart enough to realise this, hence they had gay partners to avoid conception.

More dangerous than teen pregnancy (which doesn't affect gays)? Or perhaps you're worried it will turn them all gay, when homosexuals haven't had their sexual orientation changed during millenia of oppression. Maybe you think it will lead to the breakup of the family unit, under the mistaken belief that loving families will turn on each other simply because gays can marry. There are many arguments against gay marriage, and in many discussions on the subject I have torn every one of them apart.

I kind of lie with you on this issue. I go to an arts school, which is practically a breeding ground for homosexuals, and I am constantly surrounded or in interaction with gays. I have no problems with the character of said homosexuals (though for the most part they're radically left-wing ;) ), but I definitely feel there's something wrong about two males sucking face. I'm not religious, it's just unsettling when you hear two guys talking about other men in a sexual way. I don't like the idea of gay marriage because I think if they were allowed to be joined in union, it would kind of serve as a promotion of homosexuality, an endorsement.

I don't like to hear about guys talking about fat chicks in a sexual manner :)

So people are baby factories … wonderfull :rolleyes:

don't forget you work for civilization your job in life is to make things/discover things/lead people, make babies, and then die

If you don’t like it move to Somalia and live in anarchy (I am sure the warlords won’t mind you having a wedding before they boil you alive)

sniggers

homosexuality does show signs of a illness with an attraction to the same sex and little to no interest in the correct sex which is an only be explained as due to hormones and/or some sort of mental to trauma

I think we should not allow gay marriage due to the fact that you want to discourage homosexuality especially in children

on another point homosexuals are not economical because when they can no longer work they have produced no children to pay for all there benefits so it is our kids that will pay for them thus our nation becomes weaker

The correct sex? This is disturbingly like the argument that white is the 'correct' skin colour. As I have pointed out, homosexuality may be perfectly natural as a way of controlling populations.

Mental trauma? Just because you don't think homosexuality is appealing doesn't make it wrong. I dont like the thought of skydiving - but if people want to, then hey, go for it. I used to feel homosexuality was wrong, but that was because society had encouraged me to think that way.

Not all heterosexuals have children? Should we force them to? No, so we shouldn't discriminate against gay people. Our society is more than capable of sustaining even seriously crippled people. That is why our societies are good - it allows those who would otherwise die or be shunned to live and have a chance. We have more than enough resources, so your argument is just plain selfish.

I kind of lie with you on this issue. I go to an arts school, which is practically a breeding ground for homosexuals, and I am constantly surrounded or in interaction with gays. I have no problems with the character of said homosexuals (though for the most part they're radically left-wing ;) ), but I definitely feel there's something wrong about two males sucking face. I'm not religious, it's just unsettling when you hear two guys talking about other men in a sexual way. I don't like the idea of gay marriage because I think if they were allowed to be joined in union, it would kind of serve as a promotion of homosexuality, an endorsement.

Sorry, but.... just because you've got the feeling that something may not be quite suitable for the dinner-table means that two men shouldn't kiss each other or get married? And what about two women?

And... how would that promote homosexuality? Would little kids come up to their parents saying "I just saw this gay marriage in a soap opera. When I grow up, I want to be gay, too?" Honestly, I don't think that anything so profound like sexual orientation can be influenced by promotion or endorsement.

don't forget you work for civilization your job in life is to make things/discover things/lead people, make babies, and then die

If you don’t like it move to Somalia and live in anarchy (I am sure the warlords won’t mind you having a wedding before they boil you alive)

Err, hello, has the problem of over-crowding passed you altogether? If all couples had babies there would be too many humans. the only solution is either a) get rid of our medicines and let us die at the hands of disease as natur intended, or b) not have as many babies. I think I'll choose the latter.

And for God's sake, Florida Oranges, do you feel compelled to become gay after being surrounded by gays? No, so why should a kid? Think about how many kids have ramantly homophobic fathers (as an example), yet then grow up to be homosexual and live in fear of telling their parents? Your view is typically fearful and ignorant, as though genetic laws that have held for milllenia at least will break exclusively for homosexuals. They won't.

if there was no homosexuals then yes there would be more people but that being a problem is like saying normal population growth is bad if there is more people there are more geniuses, more messiahs and more production thus we would of already evolved and be well on the way towards spreading are seed across the universe

we wouldn't have to bother with resources we would be either space mining or drilling deep into the Earth hence no problem nor would we have trouble with room as the human race would of left Earth due to pressure to find more living space

Err, hello, has the problem of over-crowding passed you altogether? If all couples had babies there would be too many humans. the only solution is either a) get rid of our medicines and let us die at the hands of disease as natur intended, or b) not have as many babies. I think I'll choose the latter.

I dunno, all that disease sounds pretty sweet.


Oh wait, you mean disease......that's not cool.

don't forget you work for civilization your job in life is to make things/discover things/lead people, make babies, and then die

If you don’t like it move to Somalia and live in anarchy (I am sure the warlords won’t mind you having a wedding before they boil you alive)
Lol WTF

I just think there is more to existence then to produce … I will not ever have kids, I know better because of my past (that’s a different issue) but I will probably marry a woman even so

Does that mean I am not doing my job :-P Not all of us exist to produce babies … we like to live how it pleases us most

if there was no homosexuals then yes there would be more people but that being a problem is like saying normal population growth is bad if there is more people there are more geniuses, more messiahs and more production thus we would of already evolved and be well on the way towards spreading are seed across the universe

we wouldn't have to bother with resources we would be either space mining or drilling deep into the Earth hence no problem nor would we have trouble with room as the human race would of left Earth due to pressure to find more living space
That argument is bunk
We would have more mass killers more bad leaders more sub standard intelligences as well

There are plenty of bring people out there it does not mean the idiots do not have a tendency do drowned their voices out

The correct sex? This is disturbingly like the argument that white is the 'correct' skin colour. As I have pointed out, homosexuality may be perfectly natural as a way of controlling populations.

Mental trauma? Just because you don't think homosexuality is appealing doesn't make it wrong. I dont like the thought of skydiving - but if people want to, then hey, go for it. I used to feel homosexuality was wrong, but that was because society had encouraged me to think that way.

Not all heterosexuals have children? Should we force them to? No, so we shouldn't discriminate against gay people. Our society is more than capable of sustaining even seriously crippled people. That is why our societies are good - it allows those who would otherwise die or be shunned to live and have a chance. We have more than enough resources, so your argument is just plain selfish.


might I point out that unless we start using genetics to make healthy babies we will eventually become weaker and weaker (due to no natural selection) (learned that on the program evolution)

I just like to add I am not a nazi but all the people I have met with physical/mental problems wish they didn't have them so why should we not cure?

if there was no homosexuals then yes there would be more people but that being a problem is like saying normal population growth is bad if there is more people there are more geniuses, more messiahs and more production thus we would of already evolved and be well on the way towards spreading are seed across the universe

we wouldn't have to bother with resources we would be either space mining or drilling deep into the Earth hence no problem nor would we have trouble with room as the human race would of left Earth due to pressure to find more living space

You must be joking. Do you realise how far we are from colonising other planets? A long, long way away. We already have geniuses - enough to research this stuff. I know we aren't meant to flame, but frankly you are utterly ignorant of the world you live in. I'm sorry, but that is truly how uninformed you are. Your arguments are based on nothing more than fanciful tales.

might I point out that unless we start using genetics to make healthy babies we will eventually become weaker and weaker (due to no natural selection) (learned that on the program evolution)

I just like to add I am not a nazi but all the people I have met with physical/mental problems wish they didn't have them so why should we not cure?

There are deaf people who consider efforts to eliminate deafness as a form of nazism. They have devloped their own sort of culture - even dances based on sign language. Be careful of what you intend to 'cure'. Yes, genetic conditions could be cured and many should be - but homosexuality? It isn't a problem. It doesn't need 'curing'.

Lol WTF

I just think there is more to existence then to produce … I will not ever have kids, I know better because of my past (that’s a different issue) but I will probably marry a woman even so

Does that mean I am not doing my job :-P Not all of us exist to produce babies … we like to live how it pleases us most

as long as you work your doing your job (its just that your not doing the one thing nature wants you to do which is carry on your genes)

might I point out that unless we start using genetics to make healthy babies we will eventually become weaker and weaker (due to no natural selection) (learned that on the program evolution)

I just like to add I am not a nazi but all the people I have met with physical/mental problems wish they didn't have them so why should we not cure?

Just wondering, are you a scientoligist?

You must be joking. Do you realise how far we are from colonising other planets? A long, long way away. We already have geniuses - enough to research this stuff. I know we aren't meant to flame, but frankly you are utterly ignorant of the world you live in. I'm sorry, but that is truly how uninformed you are. Your arguments are based on nothing more than fanciful tales.

looks like you didn't read the part where I explained we would be more ahead in space due to population pressure an please don't turn this into a "cuss" match

looks like you didn't read the part where I explained we would be more ahead in space due to population pressure an please don't turn this into a "cuss" match

Or governments would just limit the ammount of children you can have if any at all instead of pumping cash into space exploration.

Alright, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have flamed.

But you are still wrong. We have some of the best minds available working on space travel. No matter how many more people there are, we would not be much further than we are now. And we need to be much, much further along than we are now to even consider space colonisation.

One question: What is on the US dollar? "In God We Trust"--and I can guarantee that it's the Christian god, not any other.

My point is, the Christian values were as much a part of the creation of the laws of the US as anything. Religion is indeed in the government. It's not supposed to value one religion over another, but it most certainly does.

Instead of trying to return the definition of marriage to what it used to be, the easier solution would be to leave marraige with the religions and just stick with civil union for the government.

I'm just trying to work with what's out there today.

What's on the US Dollar is meaningless... Realistically; it should not be on there... The official US Motto is also on most coinage though; "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of many, one....)

It's not supposed to, and I will not support it valuing one religion over another; because in doing that it is acting illegally.

The Easiest sollution is to place marriage where it belongs; in the hands of the people who enter into the institution. Not let it be ruled by government; or by particular churches.... Churches have it (because they are composed of people) and people not in the religious institutions have it (because they are people)...

Both sides need to make concessions... Mine is the most logical and reasonable. Since it leaves marriage where it is supposed to be with the people.... Not with particular institutions; not with the government.

Religion does not get monopoly over the term. Because it neither deserves, nor has right to such a monopoly, nor has it possessed such monopoly under law....

Commonlaw Marriage..... That is the answer.... Contracted by, in accordance with, and persuant to, the parties entering into the marriage.... And no one else; except if brought under suit by the parties involved...

Just wondering, are you a scientoligist?

scientoligist? wtf is that

obviously I have spoken and been mates with people with disability’s so I have spoken to them on the issue

deaf people are very divided on wither there children should have surgery to cure the disability but everyone I met would wait for there children to be old enough to make the choice themselves (but I haven’t really met too many deaf people)

If people want something curing that they are suffering from, then I agree they have a right to have it cured.

Alright, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have flamed.

But you are still wrong. We have some of the best minds available working on space travel. No matter how many more people there are, we would not be much further than we are now. And we need to be much, much further along than we are now to even consider space colonisation.

if there were no homosexuals when civilization started up to now we would be very far ahead indeed e.g. we would of probably discovered America very quickly due to massive pressures to expand

and also there would be a far greater workforce creating more money and more items thus the cost of space missions would tumble

if there were no homosexuals when civilization started up to now we would be very far ahead indeed e.g. we would of probably discovered America very quickly due to massive pressures to expand

and also there would be a far greater workforce creating more money and more items thus the cost of space missions would tumble
Creationg more moeny? I think you need to read about economics we can print as much money as we want but there is in the end all about resources
More people means LESS money for each individual

scientoligist? wtf is that



It's a whacko religion. Not that I am saying you're a whacko, just that some of your ideas seemed symmetrical in ways to scientology but I was reading too much into things.

I didn't mean any offence. If, however, I have offended any scientologists.....go fuck yourselves.

If people want something curing that they are suffering from, then I agree they have a right to have it cured.

the question is how far would you go for the cure

also when homosexuals are young or just starting they don't want to be gay there forced to by there emotions now if there was a cure don't you think they would take it

the question is how far would you go for the cure

also when homosexuals are young or just starting they don't want to be gay there forced to by there emotions now if there was a cure don't you think they would take it
I don’t think anyone should forced to be “not” themselves unless there is imitate and provable harm (objectively)

What's on the US Dollar is meaningless... Realistically; it should not be on there... The official US Motto is also on most coinage though; "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of many, one....)

It's not supposed to, and I will not support it valuing one religion over another; because in doing that it is acting illegally.

The Easiest sollution is to place marriage where it belongs; in the hands of the people who enter into the institution. Not let it be ruled by government; or by particular churches.... Churches have it (because they are composed of people) and people not in the religious institutions have it (because they are people)...

Both sides need to make concessions... Mine is the most logical and reasonable. Since it leaves marriage where it is supposed to be with the people.... Not with particular institutions; not with the government.

Religion does not get monopoly over the term. Because it neither deserves, nor has right to such a monopoly, nor has it possessed such monopoly under law....

Commonlaw Marriage..... That is the answer.... Contracted by, in accordance with, and persuant to, the parties entering into the marriage.... And no one else; except if brought under suit by the parties involved...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not morally opposed to anything you've said. I'm just going by the actual reality of the world today.

Believe me, I'd love it if government kept its hands off just about everything, and left it to the people to decide what's best for them.

I would love to see real common law marriages in society. We've got something called that in Wisconsin, but it's not really common law--and it's unenforcable--at least not to the extent "legal" marriages are enforcable.

I have to concur with the economic model:

Money is based off of resources.... Whether they be a Fixed Standard; or a Variable Infrastructure....

Resources are limited; and confined..... Not limitless..... More people equals less available resources per person.... And therefore "less" money...

if there were no homosexuals when civilization started up to now we would be very far ahead indeed e.g. we would of probably discovered America very quickly due to massive pressures to expand

and also there would be a far greater workforce creating more money and more items thus the cost of space missions would tumble

I'm not so sure that the cost of space missions would tumble, since the more advanced our technology gets the more it will cost and be harder it will be to make.

Creationg more moeny? I think you need to read about economics we can print as much money as we want but there is in the end all about resources
More people means LESS money for each individual

your forgeting the fact that this would be human dovelpoment in the fast lane we wouldn't have any more of the problems than we would now its just that our current level of technology could of been achieved much, much and much earlier

I'm not so sure that the cost of space missions would tumble, since the more advanced our technology gets the more it will cost and be harder it will be to make.

you fogetting nanotechnology

also if this world would fail than so would ours its just this one would end sooner

your forgeting the fact that this would be human dovelpoment in the fast lane we wouldn't have any more of the problems than we would now its just that our current level of technology could of been achieved much, much and much earlier
Throwing more manpower at the problem does not necessarily mean you will cure it … you might just make more problems

your forgeting the fact that this would be human dovelpoment in the fast lane we wouldn't have any more of the problems than we would now its just that our current level of technology could of been achieved much, much and much earlier

Thermodynamics....

Read up on it....

you fogetting nanotechnology

also if this world would fail than so would ours its just this one would end sooner
And how will nanno technology solve the problem of increased design cost … designing nanno technology will be more expensive then anything we have developed yet

I don’t think anyone should forced to be “not” themselves unless there is imitate and provable harm (objectively)

what if they don't want to be or they have a family that loves them is it wrong for them to "correct it"

think of it this way:

one person cracking a rock to get the gold inside

two people cracking two rocks

now if the rocks run out wouldn't the second company (who hadn't of spent the all money they made yet) been able to move to another place with rocks

what if they don't want to be or they have a family that loves them is it wrong for them to "correct it"
That is up to them whatever makes them happy

Just like to say how this argument will never be ended...no-one knows if earlier overpopulation would of lead to an earlier discovery of America, but lets remember the western world didn't discover America as native Americans had been there for centuries.And gays dont really slow down the birth rate as there are plenty of hetrosexuals who dont have babies. Im straight myself but i dont understand how so many other straights can get so wound up over gays and gay marriages...be grateful they're not taking our women! Also most straight males complain about male straight marriages but wouldn't pause at any oppurtunity to buy a film containing lesbians! Let people love and be loved by whoever they want and concentrate anger and disgust at people who deserve that. Today many people were killed by a terrorist attack in London and people believe gays are sinners?

think of it this way:

one person cracking a rock to get the gold inside

two people cracking two rocks

now if the rocks run out wouldn't the second company (who hadn't of spent the all money they made yet) been able to move to another place with rocks
No not at all the same

The second company would have spent twice as much on housing
Food
Pay
Health
Death
And all the other stuff that comes with workers

They in the end might have had LESS moving money then the first company

That is up to them whatever makes them happy

Q:so why arn't there people focosed on the correction of it?

A:because people will hate them and/or call them nazis and scientology

No not at all the same

The second company would have spent twice as much on housing
Food
Pay
Health
Death
And all the other stuff that comes with workers

They in the end might have had LESS moving money then the first company

but due to unemployment the company could hire 2 people for half the cost

Q:so why arn't there people focosed on the correction of it?

A:because people will hate them and/or call them nazis and scientology
Wrong its been tried so far there is no “cure” for gay sorry
There are people trying but they border on the inhumane … so far no lasting success

but due to unemployment the company could hire 2 people for half the cost
Nope they are still people they still need food and housing

Not to mention the company is on an island as there is a limit to how much food they can grow to support their population


by having too many workers they may all starve to death

but due to unemployment the company could hire 2 people for half the cost

What about workers unions though?

Nope they are still people they still need food and housing

Not to mention the company is on an island as there is a limit to how much food they can grow to support their population


by having too many workers they may all starve to death

yes but the first worker could leave any time so the worker gets a fair wage and benefits

the 2 workers would be able to buy food much cheaper due to cheap wages in the food industry though there homes would be crowded and due to pay cuts in transport they could have food shipped for a tiny cost

Wrong its been tried so far there is no “cure” for gay sorry
There are people trying but they border on the inhumane … so far no lasting success



We need to fund research into genetic modification, that would solve the entire issue (except for those who resist, but then they won't have an excuse to blame anything on God ;)).

What about workers unions though?

the mass umemployment would leave people to get the first jobs they can get think of the depression

The only problem with gay marriage is that people talk about it waaaaaaay too much.

yes but the first worker could leave any time so the worker gets a fair wage and benefits

the 2 workers would be able to buy food much cheaper due to cheap wages in the food industry though there homes would be crowded and due to pay cuts in transport they could have food shipped for a tiny cost

Your assuming cheap wages = cheap goods, which most of the times isn't the case.

Wrong its been tried so far there is no “cure” for gay sorry
There are people trying but they border on the inhumane … so far no lasting success

the cure would be hormone therapy or reducing the female hormones in the body
Or you could try a mental cure that would work if there was funding for it

yes but the first worker could leave any time so the worker gets a fair wage and benefits

the 2 workers would be able to buy food much cheaper due to cheap wages in the food industry though there homes would be crowded and due to pay cuts in transport they could have food shipped for a tiny cost
But disease runs rampant in the cramped conditions … thousands die. And among those that don’t die some fight not wanting to continue the work because they don’t want to leave

Not to mention that the workers have families that don’t contribute to the production of the company so they are a drag on resources

As there are more and more workers because the company keeps bringing them in fresh water runs out … food becomes scarce because they can NOT produce enough and as of now they don’t have any way to bring food from off site.

People start dying ... the company's resources are consumed in keeping their workers alive rather then moving.

All the time the first company keeps working ... makes sure they do not bring in more workers then are needed or they want and make sure its within limits of their food housing and watter

Death is lower for the smaller company and they save up the moving money that would have otherwise had to be spent keeping their workers alive

Ok we are going too far with this analogy

the cure would be hormone therapy or reducing the female hormones in the body
Or you could try a mental cure that would work if there was funding for it
Proof? sexual orientation is not all about hormones
You have no idea of biology do you?

Your assuming cheap wages = cheap goods, which most of the times isn't the case.

it would work because there would be more company’s (due to unemployment) and thus a more competitive market

Simply?

Why should I care what other people do in the privacy of their homes with a loved one.

We need to fund research into genetic modification, that would solve the entire issue (except for those who resist, but then they won't have an excuse to blame anything on God ;)).
And you guys accuse us of playing god sometimes? sheesh

I would think you would be messing with gods natural plan for each of us.

Simply?

Why should I care what other people do in the privacy of their homes with a loved one.

A) because your kids will be forking out the cash to pay for there pention

b) because there gay because they have to be and thus are stuck

it would work because there would be more company’s (due to unemployment) and thus a more competitive market
No remember we are stuck on ONE island for now untill the moving money is saved up

We are restricted to the resources of this ONE island

And you guys accuse us of playing god sometimes? sheesh

I would think you would be messing with gods natural plan for each of us.


you forgetting all the babies that didn't live because of gays

A) because your kids will be forking out the cash to pay for there pention

b) because there gay because they have to be and thus are stuck
Your kids will be forking out for my pension too … I am not having kids

you forgetting all the babies that didn't live because of gays
Maybe that was gods plan … to make sure we stayed safe

you forgetting all the babies that didn't live because of gays

Ohh man, they are soooooo much better off then we are. Lucky little buggers.

And you guys accuse us of playing god sometimes? sheesh

I would think you would be messing with gods natural plan for each of us.



Personally, I would love to have certain genes that cause OCD (and, hence, my addiction to forums and games :D) removed or modified. Same for those that cause overeating and obesity, a penchant for consuming alcoholic beverages, strong sexual urges in pedophiles, etc.

No remember we are stuck on ONE island for now untill the moving money is saved up

We are restricted to the resources of this ONE island

due to population pressure the inhabitants would move away looking for a better life or the food would run out and they would sail away to a continent which is what has happened anyway for centuries and is the reason why the human race colonized the planet

Personally, I would love to have certain genes that cause OCD (and, hence, my addiction to forums and games :D) removed or modified. Same for those that cause overeating and obesity, a penchant for consuming alcoholic beverages, strong sexual urges in pedophiles, etc.
And I prefer to let people be who they are unless they harm others

Personally, I would love to have certain genes that cause OCD (and, hence, my addiction to forums and games :D) removed or modified. Same for those that cause overeating and obesity, a penchant for consuming alcoholic beverages, strong sexual urges in pedophiles, etc.

If addiction to forums and games is wrong then I don't want to be right. :p

Let's use the Golden Rule.

Treat others as you'd want them to treat you...

Now, would you want gay people telling you that you can't marry women?
I would rather not marry a woman, cause, I am one.

Your kids will be forking out for my pension too … I am not having kids

which wouldn't be too much of a problem if there wasn't so many people not having kids

due to population pressure the inhabitants would move away looking for a better life or the food would run out and they would sail away to a continent which is what has happened anyway for centuries and is the reason why the human race colonized the planet
Remember they couldn’t … not enough money yet because they ate it all up the company does not have the money nor the resources to send them elsewhere… and only the company can build a boat good enough for them to survive the trip off island

If they only had less people they would have had more moving money and resources to build the boat with

The Canadian House of Commons just voted to legalize gay marriage. The sky hasn't fallen yet. Maybe God is waiting until it passes the Senate to smite us.

due to population pressure the inhabitants would move away looking for a better life or the food would run out and they would sail away to a continent which is what has happened anyway for centuries and is the reason why the human race colonized the planet

Actually while population increase has caused exploration one can't forget the cash reason as well. Columbus wasn't exactly sailing to find places for people to settle, in so much as he was looking for a faster route to where cash could be made.

The Canadian House of Commons just voted to legalize gay marriage. The sky hasn't fallen yet. Maybe God is waiting until it passes the Senate to smite us.



He allowed Greece and Rome to last a looooooong time before they were usurped, do you think He would instantly smite Canada?

Remember they couldn’t … not enough money yet because they ate it all up the company does not have the money nor the resources to send them elsewhere… and only the company can build a boat good enough for them to survive the trip off island

If they only had less people they would have had more moving money and resources to build the boat with

the second company would of had a massive boom and had enough money at one time to build a bigger boat

the first company would of spent more of the money paying the worker and would have less

the second company would of had a massive boom and had enough money at one time to build a bigger boat

the first company would of spent more of the money paying the worker and would have less
Nope because it is all about resources the company gave all its money to the workers instead of saving it

The first company would have more money to design the boat and its workers would be comfortable

The second company would be poor and out of food with its workers dying from starvation and lack of food because they had too many workers

Actually while population increase has caused exploration one can't forget the cash reason as well. Columbus wasn't exactly sailing to find places for people to settle, in so much as he was looking for a faster route to where cash could be made.

the cash from resources was the reason why the broke nation gave columbus the money as he promised to bring back gold

He allowed Greece and Rome to last a looooooong time before they were usurped, do you think He would instantly smite Canada?
And talk about "godless" areas such as japan and china they sure have lasted a long time

Nope because it is all about resources the company gave all its money to the workers instead of saving it

The first company would have more money to design the boat and its workers would be comfortable

The second company would be poor and out of food with its workers dying from starvation and lack of food because they had too many workers

the second company would of only paid a fraction of the price for its workers and though the workers won't be too well off the company would make much more money

the second company would of only paid a fraction of the price for its workers and though the workers won't be too well off the company would make much more money
Nope cause the workers require food and shelter and health … they would have spent all their money building farms and hospitals and houses

Nope cause the workers require food and shelter and health … they would have spent all their money building farms and hospitals and houses

the workers would of lived in a simple shelter and enough food to keep them alive they wouldn't complain there lucky to have a job

the workers would of lived in a simple shelter and enough food to keep them alive they wouldn't complain there lucky to have a job

If conditions are poor enough what's to stop them from striking/revolting. A company can't do anything if it's workforce isn't working.

If conditions are poor enough what's to stop them from striking/revolting. A company can't do anything if it's workforce isn't working.

the company hires two new workers and sacks the others also they couldn't afford to strike because there company dosn't give them enough to save anything

the company hires two new workers and sacks the others also they couldn't afford to strike because there company dosn't give them enough to save anything

Then the workers revolt and the company is dismantled directly by the revolt, or they have to deal with a smaller workforce that won't nessecarily be appreciative of the strong arm tactics used against the revolt.

Then the workers revolt and the company is dismantled directly by the revolt, or they have to deal with a smaller workforce that won't nessecarily be appreciative of the strong arm tactics used against the revolt.

the company gives the unemployed on the island a few scraps to kill the disidents and still ends up saving compared to the first

the company gives the unemployed on the island a few scraps to kill the disidents and still ends up saving compared to the first

And what happens after the disidents are gone, some unemployed get low paying jobs while the rest sit in poverty? The conditions for revolution are set up again, and the cylce goes on.

the second company would of only paid a fraction of the price for its workers and though the workers won't be too well off the company would make much more money

There are 5000 rocks with gold in them....

One company starts cracking those rocks, with one worker.... The worker can crack 1 rock an hour.... (4999 hours worth of work left)

The company uses the profits from the first rock, to hire another employee.... he too can crack 1 rock and hour.... (~2500 hours worth of rocks left)...

The use the proffits from the two; and hire two more employees... they too can do one rock an hour (~1250 hours of rocks left)...

The profits are used to hire four more employees.... also, can crack 1 rock an hour...(~620 hours worth of rocks left)

The company uses those profits to buy a machine to assist the workers; doubling their production capacity to 2 rocks per hour each.... (~320 hours worth of rocks left)

The company perfects the machine, doubling it's capacity; they can now effectively crack four times as much as before (8 rocks an hour per person)... (~76 hours worth of rocks left)

A new machine is purchased; now each person can crack 15 rocks an hour, per person.....(~ 39 hours of rocks left)

The machine is perfected to 20 rocks an hours per person.... (~28 hours worth of rocks left)

The company buys more machines, and hires 8 more workers.... (~13 hours worth of rocks left)

The company doubles the machines processing capability.... (~5 hours worth of rocks left)

The company doubles the workers.... (~2 hours worth of rocks left)

The company doubles the machines capacity.... The Company mines the last rock within the hour.... There are no more rocks.... Welcome to entropy... The entire human race dies, and everything enters a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.... Life, as it is known, is over....

:Key up theme.... "Entropy" by M.C. Hawking: (Can be temporarily found in place of my National anthem at my site (http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania/).)

Why thankyou - although I should point out that, right now, ANY Muslim coming up to me is going to be getting angry looks. Yes, I'm British, white, patriotic and bloody angry (though when I think about it I acknowledge that not all Muslims support this in the least). But anyway, enough of that.

I dislike homosexuals, bisexuals etc. for what they practise, but not for who they are; I've at least two or three gay friends, because I like them as people and can ignore their sexual practices as a result. It's almost as though I mentally isolate homosexuality, and treat it more as a disease than as a way of living.
About that Muslim thing: Don't worry mate. I doubt there's anyone in the world who can't understand you, and there prolly aren't too many who don't feel the same way. I know I do, and I have a couple of very good Muslim friends.

Anyway, I'm glad you don't let your gut-feeling interfere with your life. Most poofs I know feel the exact same way about straight people. I can't really understand it, but I'm glad most people have enough sense not to let their feelings about alternative sexualities influence how they treat people.

FAirly simple question, but why do don't people like gay marriage?
Are gays evil/sinful/stupid/second class citizens, or it is because marriage is a religious institution.

I'm not gay, but don't have a problem with them. Vote for options

Homosexual people have a right to practice homosexual relationships as far as I'm concerned, but IMO they can never be more than a good friendship and sexual relationship i.e. they can never be a marriage. Marriage is, IMO, a God ordained relationship that can only take place between a man and woman. It is a religious institution and should have nothing to do with legal, contractual relationships.

The only question I have is this:

If two gay men are getting married, to which of them do we give the bridal shower, and to whom do we give the bachelor party?

1. How is it "self-destructive" ? There are 6 billion people on this planet, even if 1/2 of them were homosexual; it still would not act detrimentally to the population.

2. That assumes it's "self-destructive".

3. Which is why all the past high-penalties have prevented people from practicing it, right?
1. the goal of life is to continue it's species, not to die out.
2. based on number one.
3. you should visit yopenya or saudi arabia.

The only question I have is this:

If two gay men are getting married, to which of them do we give the bridal shower, and to whom do we give the bachelor party?
If it were me, I'd be giving the bachelor party :cool:

The only question I have is this:

If two gay men are getting married, to which of them do we give the bridal shower, and to whom do we give the bachelor party?
It's easy, just give both of them bachelor parties and screw the bridal shower! :D

1. the goal of life is to continue it's species, not to die out.
2. based on number one.
3. you should visit yopenya or saudi arabia.

1. How does a minority of homosexuals getting married to one another (where before they merely would not have been married, but merly stayed together) in any way cause the entirety of the human race to die out?

2. Number one doesn't exist already....

3. Where, of course, they arrest homosexuals still (even after centuries of enforcement of "Islamic Law"); so we see how effective it is... (Which it's not)...

Once you've developed an actual logical and functional argument; give me a hollar...

Homosexual people have a right to practice homosexual relationships as far as I'm concerned, but IMO they can never be more than a good friendship and sexual relationship i.e. they can never be a marriage. Marriage is, IMO, a God ordained relationship that can only take place between a man and woman. It is a religious institution and should have nothing to do with legal, contractual relationships.
Why don't you follow your own name's advice and let them take responsibility for their own lives and leave God out of it?

I think it would be better if the government pulled out of marriage. Just give everyone a civil union, straight and gay alike. But I don't think the conservatives would accept that, since it would *gasp* put them on an equal footing with gays before the law.

Why don't you follow your own name's advice and let them take responsibility for their own lives and leave God out of it?

I think it would be better if the government pulled out of marriage. Just give everyone a civil union, straight and gay alike. But I don't think the conservatives would accept that, since it would *gasp* put them on an equal footing with gays before the law.

Well, although, I take exception to your first question as it is obviously argumentative, I am, as a conservative, in complete agreement with your comment on civil unions. The government has no business being involved in a religious rite like marriage.

i dont have a problem with gays but i do have problems with marriage. the whole idea seems kind of old to me.

Howcome? Marriage isn't exactly a religious concept. Not currently and not historically.
It is, however, something that changes your legal standing in several very important ways. That's why it's about equal rights.

So why are you against same-sex marriages and in what way do you consider it "outdated"?

I'll be honest: I have a problem with homosexuality. I can't say why, because when I search for it there isn't any real logic behind it;

Realising you have a problem is the first step.

I have no problem with gays, I think that they are as much people as anyone. They deserve rights, but as far as marriage goes I'd say no. I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Gay people do deserve the benefits of married couples though. I think that they should have there own "binding" relationship other than marriage, and still have the same rights as married people.

It amazes me sometimes how closed minded people can be. Being discriminatory towards gays is just stupid.<snip> (bold mine)


Such as by banning gay marriage?

About that Muslim thing: Don't worry mate. I doubt there's anyone in the world who can't understand you

Actualy, no I can't understand it at all. Assholes have never made sense to me. No matter how you cut it that is the reaction of an asshole.

The only question I have is this:

If two gay men are getting married, to which of them do we give the bridal shower, and to whom do we give the bachelor party?

Unless one or both says otherwise I say bachelor partys all around, buying all that booze and all those male strippers will be great for the economy!

FAirly simple question, but why do don't people like gay marriage?
Are gays evil/sinful/stupid/second class citizens, or it is because marriage is a religious institution.

I'm not gay, but don't have a problem with them. Vote for options
The problem with gay marriage is that it is the ultimate assault on traditional gender roles and, thus, an assault on the entrenched patriarchy that Judeo-Christian tradition is founded upon. Marriage, to them, is the passing of female property from one male (usually her father) to another male (her husband), so that her sexuality can be controlled by a male at all points in her life. Her virginity is first owned by her father, and then her (supposedly) sole sexual partner will be her husband, allowing him to assume total dominion over both her and any children she bears.

The outcry over same-sex marriage is the same that occured when women were granted the right to own their own property, the right to vote, and the right to hold their husbands accountable for rape. It is the same that occured when black people (who are also supposed to be property) were allowed to marry, or even marry white people. It is an outcry founded on fear of losing power. It is a child's temper tantrum over having to share a toy.

A certain class of people have enjoyed ownership of other people for several centuries, and when we inform them that they are no longer free to own other human beings they decide to cry and pout. When we inform them that women do not exist to make babies, the former Owners cry and pout. When we inform them that marriage is not about sticking a penis into a vagina, they cry and pout. When we tell them that family is about more than the union of the Most Holy Sperm with the Less Important But Still Somewhat Useful Ovum, they cry and pout.

Some people never grow up. They remain petulant children for their entire lives. They expect their wants to supercede other people's rights. They expect their beliefs to supercede reality. They expect their personal comfort level to be ranked more important than the civil liberties of other citizens. They expect us all to give a damn that they think boy-kissing is icky.

They're in for a rude awakening.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Hooray for assualts on traditional gender roles!

*Waves to her man in the kitchen, baking her some bread*