NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote yes or no.

yes

voted, yes on poll, they have my full support.

No, its unnatural.

No, its unnatural.

Your unnnatural, and close minded. They have a right to be happy and getting married to who they love also.

No, its unnatural.

I'm against it, to be honest. Not out of bigotry, but respect I guess for marriage.

Your unnnatural, and close minded. They have a right to be happy and getting married to who they love also.

Stop being so intolerant of his beleifs. After all, tolerance is what the gay community preaches...

Seeing as there is no such thing as god.. and religion being bullshit..

Sure, I'll vote yes.

Stop being so intolerant of his beleifs. After all, tolerance is what the gay community preaches...
Yes, tolerance, of the gay community.

Your unnnatural, and close minded. They have a right to be happy and getting married to who they love also.

Don't get me wrong I've no problem with gays as people and I'm sure they are some really nice people. Its just the whole concept that I object to.

Neither choice was adequate. Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to legalize or ban gay marriage?

what is beleifs? anyways, I WILL not be tolerant of what he said. No way not now, not ever. Tolerance is for people with sane ideas. This is just like telling black people back when segregation was in style that it's acceptable to have different water fountains, bathrooms, schools, etc for black people. No it's not right.

what is beleifs? anyways, I WILL not be tolerant of what he said. No way not now, not ever. Tolerance is for people with sane ideas. This is just like telling black people back when segregation was in style that it's acceptable to have different water fountains, bathrooms, schools, etc for black people. No it's not right.

woow, carm down a bit you asked for peoples opinons and then object when I give mine. :mad:
Whould you have prefered me to just have lied and said yes? If your going to be like that then there was no point in the poll I could tell you the result!

I feel there is no good reason for disallowing civil marriages for gays.

They are not going to be interested in people of the opposite gender, so it's not as if gay marriage is taking potential mates off the market.

And people must be VERY insecure if they think what another couple does in their personal relationship has any bearing whatsoever on their relationship with their own spouse.

There is a double standard here regarding "the sanctity of marriage". After all, nobody complains of divorce and ITS effect on the sanctity of marriage....

Civil unions, yes, but that's not the same as marriage. Perhaps you could include a civil union option?

Civil unions, yes, but that's not the same as marriage.
A civil union is just marriage by another name. There's no real difference. It's when you try to unite two people into one flesh (as marriage is described in Genesis) who simply can't be one flesh. A woman and a man can, however.

As Nanny Ogg put it in the Discworld books, "Put Tabbe A into Slotte B..."

Though it's not my cup of tea, I can see how a non-male/female union could be made "one flesh."

And no, I'm not explaining further. Use your imagination.

Neither. Let them have civil unions, but leave it up to religious institutions to decide on marriage- marriage is a religious institution, after all.

Why should only straight married people be liable to losing half their stuff in a divorce?

I say enough of this special treatment for gays ! Let them enjoy the miseries of divorce court like the rest of us!

;)

Seriously, the only marriage that really matters to me is my own. Whether the person down the street wants to marry a guy or a girl has absolutely zero impact on my life. The only people who really care about this are people who would be better served by taking care of their own lives and stop trying to run everyone elses.

Neither. Let them have civil unions, but leave it up to religious institutions to decide on marriage- marriage is a religious institution, after all.
Then people who are married by a judge, justice of the peace, or cruise boat captain aren't married because it's not religious?

No, its unnatural.

A lot of things are "unnatural", such as driving a car, wearing glasses, wearing clothes, using a computer.

Whats your point?

Stop being so intolerant of his beleifs. After all, tolerance is what the gay community preaches...
No one has to be tollerrant of beliefs that restrict the freedom of others

Assuming state intervention in marriage, the legitimacy of which can be questioned, I am strongly in favor of gay marriage.

Neither choice was adequate. Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to legalize or ban gay marriage?

Nowhere. That's why Bush is pushing for an amendment.

Assuming state intervention in marriage, the legitimacy of which can be questioned, I am strongly in favor of gay marriage.



Nowhere. That's why Bush is pushing for an amendment.
I wish I could call an amendment to the Constitution "unconstitutional." Such an amendment would give the federal government illegal jurisdiction over marriage, and that's bad news for both Christians and gays -- because it means gay marriage could be legally outlawed by a Christian Congress, or it could also mean gay marriage is legalized by a pro-gay rights Congress. As a Christian against gay marriage, that's bad news. And as a constitutionalist, surrendering even more power to the federal government would just mean more tyranny.

The question is whether or not BUSH is FOR or AGAINST(!)

I have heard of a marriage where the bride danced in a raunchy manner with the priest and the groom has buttless chaps for pants. If that is considered a holy matrimoney, then I don't see why gay/lersbian marriage can't be viewed the same way.

One of the beliefs that this country was founded on was the right to choose what form of religion, if any, we choose to practice. While almost all of our American culture is based around Christianity, does not mean we have to force our views on those Americans who don't honor or believe in some or all of the same principals that Christians do.

If we do not allow prayer in school in fear of offending other religious peoples, then we should not ban the union of anyone or any type of peoples based or their religious point of views.

How can we dare say that we stand of a society of equality if we cannot even support this basic freedom. What makes us more deserving of this right than gays/lesbians?!

The arguement of "marriage is sacred" is an ignorant excuse for hatred!

I have heard of a marriage where the bride danced in a raunchy manner with the priest and the groom has buttless chaps for pants. If that is considered a holy matrimoney, then I don't see why gay/lersbian marriage can't be viewed the same way.

One of the beliefs that this country was founded on was the right to choose what form of religion, if any, we choose to practice. While almost all of our American culture is based around Christianity, does not mean we have to force our views on those Americans who don't honor or believe in some or all of the same principals that Christians do.

If we do not allow prayer in school in fear of offending other religious peoples, then we should not ban the union of anyone or any type of peoples based or their religious point of views.

How can we dare say that we stand of a society of equality if we cannot even support this basic freedom. What makes us more deserving of this right than gays/lesbians?!

The arguement of "marriage is sacred" is an ignorant excuse for hatred!

Dun dun dunnnn......

I agree.

Neither. Let them have civil unions, but leave it up to religious institutions to decide on marriage- marriage is a religious institution, after all.
Thank you :) :)

I wish I could call an amendment to the Constitution "unconstitutional." Such an amendment would give the federal government illegal jurisdiction over marriage,

How is it "illegal" if it's an amendment?

and that's bad news for both Christians and gays -- because it means gay marriage could be legally outlawed by a Christian Congress, or it could also mean gay marriage is legalized by a pro-gay rights Congress. As a Christian against gay marriage, that's bad news. And as a constitutionalist, surrendering even more power to the federal government would just mean more tyranny.

The amendment won't pass. It's an insincere populist appeal to cultural reactionaries against a mythical liberal elite seeking to crush the freedom of fundamentalists to oppress gays, and is useful solely as a political tool against the Democrats. Like abortion.

Neither. Let them have civil unions, but leave it up to religious institutions to decide on marriage- marriage is a religious institution, after all.

I'm telling you, have the government only give out civil unions (to both hetero/homosexual couples), and the churches/synagogues/etc. only give out marriages.

And then the homosexual couples can find an understanding group that will give them a religious marriage too, if they want one. :p

Im against gay marriage for religous reasons. The old testement refers to homosexuality as an abomination against God. And throughout the bible in many places it says that marriage is between a man and a women.

I think that people have the right to their opinions dont call me "close minded" or the like because IT is not your "right" nowhere in the Constitution are you given the "right" to marriage but we all have the right to our opinions and free speech and thats why we have this very hot topic debate.

No.

Civil unions, yes, but that's not the same as marriage. Perhaps you could include a civil union option?

*note, I dislike religion, but I respect the good things it does to the public*

Yah, civil unions and marriage are different. Marriage is a binding under <insert entity here> (generalisation) and a civil union is a binding under a legal document. Im all for Civil Unions, but as a mark of respect for Christianity/Islam/whateva, Gays shouldn't get married in a religious building, as it goes against what religious people believe in....silly silly...

Fight the power.

And throughout the bible in many places it says that marriage is between a man and a women.

Where?

I think that people have the right to their opinions dont call me "close minded" or the like because IT is not your "right" nowhere in the Constitution are you given the "right" to marriage but we all have the right to our opinions and free speech and thats why we have this very hot topic debate.

There is no right to marriage, but there is definitely a right to equality under the law. See the Fourteenth Amendment.

You people know what, just for the hell of saying this...

... Its not anyones position to try to control/manipulate people other than yourself. I mean really, are people that lazy and bored to protest someones love for another person (no matter the sex or age (side note: I have personal morals and stay in an age limit i can be ok with and my morals are mine)). Anyways just to illistrate the fact the US is 'free' yet peoples rights are stifled so technically the United States politics is nothing more or less than a popularity contest. So please stop trying to make everyone into a one minded society, I'm my own person and so is everyone else but I think people should really open their eyes and see the world for what it is and see the REAL problems other than marriage, like the global ownership of nuclear warheads and eventual downfall of mankind through stupidity and the high infection of ignorance. Really if you have time to read this then oh i dont know, go out, get fresh air, and see yourself and learn of the problems but dont be distracted by lies (from the government or other people) or pseudo-problems like gay marriage... pseudo means fake. This post is just an opinion so dont try to stifle my right to free speech.

As Nanny Ogg put it in the Discworld books, "Put Tabbe A into Slotte B..."

Though it's not my cup of tea, I can see how a non-male/female union could be made "one flesh."

And no, I'm not explaining further. Use your imagination.
With all respect to the perverted wisdom of Nanny Ogg, what everyone seems to be missing is that marriage isn't (completely) about sex. As Miss Ogg would agree (considering she has been around the block more times than the local transit authority) you can have sex without ever considering marriage.
Marriage (and Civil Unions for those who wish to keep marriage to just the religious, but then should we start calling court house weddings "court house civil unions?") is about love.
Denying that two people could love eachother as more than friends because they share a couple of X's or an XY is like denying that those that are incapable of sex due to birth defect or injury are also incapable of love.

With all respect to the perverted wisdom of Nanny Ogg, what everyone seems to be missing is that marriage isn't (completely) about sex. As Miss Ogg would agree (considering she has been around the block more times than the local transit authority) you can have sex without ever considering marriage.
Marriage (and Civil Unions for those who wish to keep marriage to just the religious, but then should we start calling court house weddings "court house civil unions?") is about love.


Denying that two people could love eachother as more than friends because they share a couple of X's or an XY is like denying that those that are incapable of sex due to birth defect or injury are also incapable of love.

Marriage as recognized by a governing body for legality purposes has absolutely nothing to do with love. It is recognized for the purposes of an economic unit and nothing more than that. To understand why a government recognizes marriage you first have to understand what motivates a government TO recognize it...and love isn't in there anywhere.

I think they should get married and like that guy said its not about sex the question is why are YOU thinking about gay sex? What people do in there own home is of no consurn to us.

With all respect to the perverted wisdom of Nanny Ogg, what everyone seems to be missing is that marriage isn't (completely) about sex. As Miss Ogg would agree (considering she has been around the block more times than the local transit authority) you can have sex without ever considering marriage.
Marriage (and Civil Unions for those who wish to keep marriage to just the religious, but then should we start calling court house weddings "court house civil unions?") is about love.
Denying that two people could love eachother as more than friends because they share a couple of X's or an XY is like denying that those that are incapable of sex due to birth defect or injury are also incapable of love.

Yay Steenia! *applauds* I don't see you often in the forum.

i think anyone should have a right to be happy. if someone doesn't like gay marriages, whatever, it's their ideas, but they shouldn't stop people from marrying. i think everyone should just live their own life and stop worrying if some gay couple is getting married. i personally don't believe in love, but im not going to say, "marriage is wrong and unnatural. everyone who gets married is dumb." im not the one getting married, if someone chooses to, its their choice.

I think they should get married and like that guy said its not about sex the question is why are YOU thinking about gay sex? What people do in there own home is of no consurn to us.

Er... the spelling is scary, but the message is awesome. And that is a good question to ask. Yo, people who are upset at the idea, why are you thinking about gay sex?

Im against gay marriage for religous reasons. The old testement refers to homosexuality as an abomination against God. And throughout the bible in many places it says that marriage is between a man and a women.

That's nice, but why should we base laws on what your book says?

Er... the spelling is scary, but the message is awesome. And that is a good question to ask. Yo, people who are upset at the idea, why are you thinking about gay sex?

I can't claim saying this, but a friend once told me...

If you want to stop gay people from having sex, why are you discouraging them from marrage?

I can't claim saying this, but a friend once told me...

If you want to stop gay people from having sex, why are you discouraging them from marrage?

Why are you quoting me? I'm not discouraging anyone from marriage!
Funny quote, tho.

I'm against it, to be honest. Not out of bigotry, but respect I guess for marriage.

So in respect for marriage you would force someone to marry into a relationship he doesn't believe in just to have it torn apart when he decides he can't take it anymore?
Or is it in respect for marriage you simply want to manipulate it's rules to make people more miserable?
I can't really an logical reason why anyone who claims to be respectful of marriage and family values would be against gay marriage. It leads to a much more positive and stronger family when everyone's just honest with one another, whereas being forced to live a life that just doesn't feel right will only tear families up.
I guess it must a "the more you talk about family values the less you have to give a damn about them" sorta thing.

Marriage is one person's dedication to another person, and there's no reason why it should matter if it's not necessarily a man and a woman and the only thing that's disgracing it here is that it's being manipulated to further some homphobic hate-filled agenda.

If someone wants to suck their own feces from their lovers' meatus, that's cool. Just don't come to work smelling like it please. Nasty mofos.

If someone wants to suck their own feces from their lovers' meatus, that's cool. Just don't come to work smelling like it please. Nasty mofos.
Well you knew the thread was heading this way :rolleyes:

Marriage is one person's dedication to another person, and there's no reason why it should matter if it's not necessarily a man and a woman and the only thing that's disgracing it here is that it's being manipulated to further some homphobic hate-filled agenda.


Yes, thats true. I would like to add something that people can do something to better life rather than complaining about gay marriage.

My god, let's just see how trite we can be. Let's debate abortion or pre-marital sex. Everyone's core beliefs will easily be swayed in an online forum.

My god, let's just see how trite we can be. Let's debate abortion or pre-marital sex. Everyone's core beliefs will easily be swayed in an online forum.


Hey wth? everyone minus one... I'm not easily swayed, I keep true to myself

I voted yes
I have no problem with gay weddings IN THE US :rolleyes:

If someone wants to suck their own feces from their lovers' meatus, that's cool. Just don't come to work smelling like it please. Nasty mofos.

Funny how these people are allowed to marry.

Hey wth? everyone minus one... I'm not easily swayed, I keep true to myself

I think that was sarcastic, Am.

I think that was sarcastic, Am.
I think that Am hasn't been around long enough to figure that out.

Why are you quoting me? I'm not discouraging anyone from marriage!
Funny quote, tho.

Your post reminded me of it. :)

Your post reminded me of it. :)

Ah, 'K. That makes more sense.

:fluffle: [QUOTE=UIgrotha]I voted yes
I have no problem with gay weddings IN THE US

Think about what your people are promoting. In fact scrap that comment. Two men= Two hairy bung holes!! We are setting the wrong example for a more decent society. Myself I prefer the muff. My question to the gay man is, what is it about another mans hairy asshole that turns you on? I just can’t fathom the thought: Im sure your parents are so proud of you!!!:sniper:

:fluffle: [QUOTE=UIgrotha]I voted yes
I have no problem with gay weddings IN THE US

Think about what your people are promoting. In fact scrap that comment. Two men= Two hairy bung holes!! We are setting the wrong example for a more decent society. Myself I prefer the muff. My question to the gay man is, what is it about another mans hairy asshole that turns you on? I just can’t fathom the thought: Im sure your parents are so proud of you!!!:sniper:

What happens when the ladies like the muff as well?

Nowhere. That's why Bush is pushing for an amendment.

What.....? No. Nonono. That's not how it works. Of course Congress has the authority to legalize or ban any form of marriage under dispute. They're called the 'Necessary and Proper' and 'Supremacy' Clauses, and Article I of the Constitution. They can make the law. It's the Constitutionality of any such law which is subject to challenge, which is the reason Bush and the fundie mobs want a Constitutional amendment: to short-circuit efforts to institute same-sex marriage, and protect bans on it.

I say yes. I see no reason why two adults who want to be together should not be together. It doesn't threaten me, nor do I think it will destroy MY marriage.

Personally I think marriage should be a matter of signing a damn document somewhere and letting the ceremony happen where and when you will.

Yes I wish our's was a progressive society that was beyond idiocy, and bigotry.

Yes I wish our's was a progressive society that was beyond idiocy, and bigotry.

Until we get off our respective moral high horces, it's not going to happen.

[QUOTE=Helper City]:fluffle:

What happens when the ladies like the muff as well?

LMAO!!! Then id say "can I join the muffin fun" Two women. No problemo

What.....? No. Nonono. That's not how it works. Of course Congress has the authority to legalize or ban any form of marriage under dispute. They're called the 'Necessary and Proper' and 'Supremacy' Clauses, and Article I of the Constitution. They can make the law.

It's the Constitutionality of any such law which is subject to challenge, which is the reason Bush and the fundie mobs want a Constitutional amendment: to short-circuit efforts to institute same-sex marriage, and protect bans on it.

I tried, but I can't reconcile these two parts of your post; the first is contradicted by the second, and the second is essentially what I said.

LMAO!!! Then id say "can I join the muffin fun" Two women. No problemo


Interesting.... All a matter of perspectives there, thanks for proving the point.

No, gay people must not be allowed to marry eachother! It's wrong!





And nor should straight people by the way, I object to the whole concept of marriage, for exactly the same reason...

No, gay people must not be allowed to marry eachother! It's wrong!





And nor should straight people by the way, I object to the whole concept of marriage, for exactly the same reason...
whaa?? :confused:

Seeing as there is no such thing as god.. and religion being bullshit..

Sure, I'll vote yes.

I second that.

whaa?? :confused:

Yeah, you know, the whole marriage thing is tainted by 2000 years of religion... why can't we just have the same thing, with the legal benefits and a new name, but without all the religion and excluding of people built into the minds of millions of people? Abolish marriage and replace it with... hmmm... GurkMurk! Yeah, that has a good ring to it... just taste it... GurkMurk... I'm getting GurkMurked this weekend, free beer! :D

Yeah, you know, the whole marriage thing is tainted by 2000 years of religion... why can't we just have the same thing, with the legal benefits and a new name, but without all the religion and excluding of people built into the minds of millions of people? Abolish marriage and replace it with... hmmm... GurkMurk! Yeah, that has a good ring to it... just taste it... GurkMurk... I'm getting GurkMurked this weekend, free beer! :D

well I think that marriage as a concept is older than religion itself (or at the very least older than the abrahamic ones) so I say screw religions, they can be as anti progressive as they wan't just get out of the way of the people who do want to live in a progressive society. Really any law against gay marriage goes against everyone's right to freedom of religion.

Neither. Let them have civil unions, but leave it up to religious institutions to decide on marriage- marriage is a religious institution, after all.And what about the religious institutions that are in favor of gay marriage?

Marriage as recognized by a governing body for legality purposes has absolutely nothing to do with love. It is recognized for the purposes of an economic unit and nothing more than that. To understand why a government recognizes marriage you first have to understand what motivates a government TO recognize it...and love isn't in there anywhere.True, but none of the things that motivate governments to recognize marriage are exclusive to heterosexuals.

My question to the gay man is, what is it about another mans hairy asshole that turns you on? I just can’t fathom the thought:What about a woman's hairy vagina turns you on?

LMAO!!! Then id say "can I join the muffin fun" Two women. No problemoSo then what you're saying is that you're a hypocrite...good to know.

What about a woman's hairy vagina turns you on?


Nothing. women really should wax.

I support gay marriage for the simple reason that it doesnt affect me, or anyone else who isnt one of the grooms (or brides), and therefore I have no right to prevent anyone from doing it.

Yes.

It's already legal here in Canada so you people might as well have it I suppose.
I don't carry if they get married or not.
I just want them to stay out of the media.

Why not just introduce civil unions for single-sex couples? That way they can enjoy all the benefits of marriage (and can even call the ceremony a marriage) without riling the conservative majority.

Why not just introduce civil unions for single-sex couples? That way they can enjoy all the benefits of marriage (and can even call the ceremony a marriage) without riling the conservative majority.This, folks, would be an example of a "separate, but equal" situation.

Yes, who am I to condemn others' choices when they don't even affect me.

This, folks, would be an example of a "separate, but equal" situation.

If you're trying to allude to apartheid, you're being ridiculous. This system would create genuine equality, the only difference being the name between the two institutions.

Alternatively you could move to system where the state no longer recognises marriage, only civil unions between two consenting adults.

It doesn't matter if it's not the norm, or if it's a disease, or if it's a choice. As long as it is not directly affecting the well being of society it is a persons freedom to marry whoever the hell they want. Those damn religious nuts that try enforcing their backwards beliefs on other people are to have no say in what freedoms a person has. It's societies job to provide a means for humanity to share resources and cooperate in the production of goods and services. A government has the right to remove a persons freedom ONLY if they are directly harming society.

A government has the right to remove a persons freedom ONLY if they are directly harming society.

Totally agreed.
But you're still going to get the "well, them gays' lifestyle is directly harming me and my families christian moral".

The only people who are against gay marriage, are the ones arrogant enough to believe that thier God, and thier beliefs, are righteous enough to be used for every other person in existance.

If you're trying to allude to apartheid, you're being ridiculous. This system would create genuine equality, the only difference being the name between the two institutions.Not necessarily apartheid, here in the Southern U.S. it used to be that blacks and whites had different schools.

If it were genuinely equal, then there would be no need to name them differently.

Alternatively you could move to system where the state no longer recognises marriage, only civil unions between two consenting adults.Now this would be acceptable as it's actually equal.

It doesn't matter if it's not the norm, or if it's a disease, or if it's a choice. As long as it is not directly affecting the well being of society it is a persons freedom to marry whoever the hell they want. Those damn religious nuts that try enforcing their backwards beliefs on other people are to have no say in what freedoms a person has. It's societies job to provide a means for humanity to share resources and cooperate in the production of goods and services. A government has the right to remove a persons freedom ONLY if they are directly harming society.

Hmmm, but the freedom isn't there to begin with. Example, 17 year olds can't buy alcohol legally. You could say they are discriminated against simply because no one can say for sure 17 year old alcohol drinkers would be harmful to society yet we prohibit their ability to purchase alcohol legally.

In both cases, the freedom has to be granted first before it can be removed as you put it. Same applies to many things.

I think that only unions made for economic reasons or as a transfer of chattel should get to use the term "marriage". Love unions really should be called something else. They should still get the same legal benefits, obviously, but we should reserve "marriage" for traditional marriages.

I think that only unions made for economic reasons or as a transfer of chattel should get to use the term "marriage". Love unions really should be called something else. They should still get the same legal benefits, obviously, but we should reserve the "marriage" for traditional marriages.Does this mean that gay unions done for money can be called marriages?

Hmmm, but the freedom isn't there to begin with.
I believe what's on the table is whether that freedom should be introduced (i.e. it's lacking and it's lack is felt).


Example, 17 year olds can't buy alcohol legally. You could say they are discriminated against simply because no one can say for sure 17 year old alcohol drinkers would be harmful to society yet we prohibit their ability to purchase alcohol legally.

I believe that prohibition is directed at trying to protect minors from themselves, not (only) society.

Darwinianmonkeys: children are a special case. Until they're legal adults, they don't have all the rights that a citizen has. However, the government doesn't get to "grant" rights which it can then chip away at. The government only has as much power as it has managed to grab. Anything it doesn't provide for is up to us to handle. (And more, if we can argue for it or get away with it.)

Does this mean that gay unions done for money can be called marriages?
Of course. :) Any two adults (or children if their owners form the agreement) can set up a marriage, under that rule.

Darwinianmonkeys: children are a special case. Until they're legal adults, they don't have all the rights that a citizen has. However, the government doesn't get to "grant" rights which it can then chip away at. The government only has as much power as it has managed to grab. Anything it doesn't provide for is up to us to handle. (And more, if we can argue for it or get away with it.)


Of course. :) Any two adults (or children if their owners form the agreement) can set up a marriage, under that rule.

Ok but considering the legal drinking age in all 50 states is 21, which is past the majority age for all other aspects. So let's change what I said to age 20 and try again.

Stop being so intolerant of his beleifs. After all, tolerance is what the gay community preaches...

tolerant people are intolerant versus intolerant opinions.
And people are allowed to dislike gay people, they're just not allowed to prohibit them from doing things. (like marrying)

Of course. :) Any two adults (or children if their owners form the agreement) can set up a marriage, under that rule.Fair enough. At least your definition of marriage is far more traditional than "traditional" marriage is.

Ok but considering the legal drinking age in all 50 states is 21, which is past the majority age for all other aspects. So let's change what I said to age 20 and try again.
It seems beyond the jurisdiction of the US Federal government, but they didn't ask me when they were making the laws. The freedom ought to be there, but the government's taken more than its fair share.

(I think they went through the states for drinking age, in which case they technically didn't overstep their bounds, but giving funding to the states based on how well they follow guidelines about something the federal government isn't allowed to legislate on sounds coercive to me.)


Edit:
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system...
(From here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#amdt9_hd3).)

:fluffle: I voted yes
I have no problem with gay weddings IN THE US

Think about what your people are promoting. In fact scrap that comment. Two men= Two hairy bung holes!! We are setting the wrong example for a more decent society. Myself I prefer the muff. My question to the gay man is, what is it about another mans hairy asshole that turns you on? I just can’t fathom the thought: Im sure your parents are so proud of you!!!:sniper:

Typical breeder, only thinking about sex.:rolleyes:

Why not just introduce civil unions for single-sex couples? That way they can enjoy all the benefits of marriage (and can even call the ceremony a marriage) without riling the conservative majority.

Why should I care about (not) riling the conservative majority?

I would like to say what Jeff Foxworthy once said on national television in the US.

Gays should marry, and do you know why? Because they should be JUST AS MISERABLE as everyone else who gets married.

I do not agree with this. Although many married couples are miserable, not all are. I think they should marry because they need the same rights as everyone else. No one should treat them any differently than we treat whites, hispanics, blacks, or the british. They are people, just like us, and they don't need our crap any longer. Although I make many gay jokes, I don't mean them. It's the same as my white jokes, hispanic jokes, black jokes, and british jokes. It should be the same with EVERYTHING else.

Civil unions, yes, but that's not the same as marriage. Perhaps you could include a civil union option?

No, because they deserve marriage.

Civil unions are like "jumping the broom"...IT MEANS NOTHING.

And if you voted no you should probably just come out of the closet (http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html) and accept it. :p

Yes. People who say otherwise are.. silly.

No.

So what if they are born with it (which hasn't been proven!)? Others are born with spina bifida (sp?). Does that mean spina bifida is not a problem?

So what if it's genetic (which also hasn't been proven!)? Diabetes is genetic also. Does that mean diabetes isn't a problem?

So what if we see it in nature? We also see cannibalism (sp?). Should we permit cannibalism.

All the arguments for homosexuality to be allowed and accepted do not mean anything. The only arguments that have any weight are that a homosexual relationship is voluntary (the relevancy of that can be debated though) and that it isn't harming anyone (which also can be debated).

No.

So what if they are born with it (which hasn't been proven!)? Others are born with spina bifida (sp?). Does that mean spina bifida is not a problem?

So what if you are born with heterosexuality, does that mean its not a problem?

So what if it's genetic (which also hasn't been proven!)? Diabetes is genetic also. Does that mean diabetes isn't a problem?

So what if heterosexuality is genetic, does that mean its not a problem?

So what if we see it in nature? We also see cannibalism (sp?). Should we permit cannibalism.

So what if we see heterosexuality in nature? We also see cannibalism, should we permit cannibalism?

All the arguments for homosexuality to be allowed and accepted do not mean anything. The only arguments that have any weight are that a homosexual relationship is voluntary (the relevancy of that can be debated though) and that it isn't harming anyone (which also can be debated).

Your arguments are idiotic and absurd, please try again soon.

Thank you for pointing that out. You saved me the trouble.

:fluffle: [QUOTE=UIgrotha]I voted yes
I have no problem with gay weddings IN THE US

Think about what your people are promoting. In fact scrap that comment. Two men= Two hairy bung holes!! We are setting the wrong example for a more decent society. Myself I prefer the muff. My question to the gay man is, what is it about another mans hairy asshole that turns you on? I just can’t fathom the thought: Im sure your parents are so proud of you!!!:sniper:

peaches and oranges, I can easily say, A man a woman, penis and vagina!!! OMG THAYS UTERLY NASTY!. my point, let people, be who they want to be with. its no big deal and none of your business, to restrict the freedoms of a minory in a country just cause you don't agreet with them is wrong.

Actually alot more people than you think enjoy tossing the salad, both straight and gay.

So what if you are born with heterosexuality, does that mean its not a problem?



So what if heterosexuality is genetic, does that mean its not a problem?



So what if we see heterosexuality in nature? We also see cannibalism, should we permit cannibalism?



Your arguments are idiotic and absurd, please try again soon.

Exactly!!!! So why do so many people accept these arguments as final when in support of homosexuality?

The argument that gays should be given legal union but not marriage as marriage is an institution of religion is flawed.

If marriage truly is an institution of religion, then it doesn't matter anyway (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) and is a moot point. Legal union is all that matters.

Exactly!!!! So why do so many people accept these arguments as final when in support of homosexuality?

Because they accept these arguments as final when supporting heterosexuality, as was the point I was trying to make but apparently wasnt clear.

Because they accept these arguments as final when supporting heterosexuality, as was the point I was trying to make but apparently wasnt clear.

I understood your point. I twisted your statement.

And no one I know (no thinking person anyway) uses these arguments to support heterosexuality. They all understand that these arguments mean nothing. But advocates of homosexual's "rights" constantly say that they were born that way, it's genetic and we see it in nature. But really, none of those arguments have any impact on whether homosexuality should be embraced or not. These arguments only serve to sway the ignorant.

I understood your point. I twisted your statement.

And no one I know (no thinking person anyway) uses these arguments to support heterosexuality. They all understand that these arguments mean nothing. But advocates of homosexual's "rights" constantly say that they were born that way, it's genetic and we see it in nature. But really, none of those arguments have any impact on whether homosexuality should be embraced or not. These arguments only serve to sway the ignorant.

Tell me then, whats the reason we embrace heterosexuality?

Governments need to get out of the whole business of policing marriage and divorce.

Child custody, yes - property division, yes.

But short of that, private religions and organizations should issue marriage certificates.

That way, anyone who wants to present their own view of marriage has the right to issue and recognize their own marriage certificates.

And, in the workplace, all such certificates should be recognized as valid, unless the workplace is a religious one.

Actually alot more people than you think enjoy tossing the salad, both straight and gay.

You mean bi people? its all good. ;)

Tell me then, whats the reason we embrace heterosexuality?
Because, in all honesty, that's how we reproduce, and as such how religious institutions recognize it as "natural" and "proper". It doesn't mean anything.

Tell me then, whats the reason we embrace heterosexuality?

Because of Adam and Eve. Most people don't like that, but that's the argument. Can any government be free of religious influence? And if it's free of relgious influence, can it refrain from hurting relgions?

My answer to both is no. And that's a discussion for another thread. But because my relgious beliefs demand that God's Law influence all parts of my life and my society (including government) I must insist that homosexuality be recognized as a problem which leads to sin and homosexual couples be refused any recognition under the law.

Does that make me intolerant? Oh, yes. So don't bother telling me. You can curse me if you like, but I can do nothing else.

Because of Adam and Eve. Most people don't like that, but that's the argument. Can any government be free of religious influence? And if it's free of relgious influence, can it refrain from hurting relgions?

My answer to both is no. And that's a discussion for another thread. But because my relgious beliefs demand that God's Law influence all parts of my life and my society (including government) I must insist that homosexuality be recognized as a problem which leads to sin and homosexual couples be refused any recognition under the law.

Does that make me intolerant? Oh, yes. So don't bother telling me. You can curse me if you like, but I can do nothing else.
Then I wont curse you … just pity you

Why not just introduce civil unions for single-sex couples? That way they can enjoy all the benefits of marriage (and can even call the ceremony a marriage) without riling the conservative majority.

If it's all the benefits of marriage why not let them get married then? All different names and words and phrases will do is belittle them more.
And honestly, unless the majority is willing to get sick and die at the same time as whoever they want to control they should just live and let bloody live.

Of course the people who play the Christian card are just whackjob protest junkies, so I imagine no matter what anyone else says they're going to keep playing the Christian card shamelessly anyway, despite that there are plenty of people who are both gay and Christian.
I mean, seriously, who do you is more likely to be let into heaven - someone who led a decent and moral life true to themselves and god's ten commandments or someone who spent their life trying to belittle and legally torment people who weren't perfect little conforming robots?

well I think that marriage as a concept is older than religion itself (or at the very least older than the abrahamic ones) so I say screw religions, they can be as anti progressive as they wan't just get out of the way of the people who do want to live in a progressive society. Really any law against gay marriage goes against everyone's right to freedom of religion.

Yes yes, but even older religions which had the concept of marriage surely had restriction on who you could marry, so I still stand by my point on the GurkMurk since it's just a step away from all the crap usually associated with marriage. And the beer is still free! :)

Nobody has given me a compelling reason for gay marriage to be banned. Most of them have to do with some sort of homophobia. I hate that crap.

Then I wont curse you … just pity you

That's an new response. Most try to find me and disembowel me.

As so brilliantly put by Savage in Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, the stupuid average Liberal mistakes Gay rights for Civil rights. Somehow, I don't see Martin Luther King Jr. putting on a skirt and makeup.

Gays are abominations. The must cope with their condition, they are NOT normal. Their wrong attraction is a perversion of God's truth. They must resisit the lust and sodomy, as do we Heterosexuals. Being gay does NOT give them a preference in God's eyes, and allowing gay marriage supports this evil and terrible sin.

If it's all the benefits of marriage why not let them get married then? All different names and words and phrases will do is belittle them more.
And honestly, unless the majority is willing to get sick and die at the same time as whoever they want to control they should just live and let bloody live.

Of course the people who play the Christian card are just whackjob protest junkies, so I imagine no matter what anyone else says they're going to keep playing the Christian card shamelessly anyway, despite that there are plenty of people who are both gay and Christian.
I mean, seriously, who do you is more likely to be let into heaven - someone who led a decent and moral life true to themselves and god's ten commandments or someone who spent their life trying to belittle and legally torment people who weren't perfect little conforming robots?
Those who claim to be Christian yet are gay and have gay sex and lust, yet claim it is normal, do not deserve to be called Christians.
You see, your ignorance about Christianty leads you to attack it terribly, as only ignorant fools ignore the truth of Christ. Apparently, you yourself are ordering others to conform, so stop that argument right now. It is our DUTY as Christians to STAND AGAINST immorality and to SPREAD the truth of our fiath. In reality, the gays are the "wackjob protest junkies"

Tell me then, whats the reason we embrace heterosexuality?
Quite simply put, it is NATURAL and NORMAL. Homosexualtiy is NOT, it is a MENTAL ILLNESS that is UNCURABLE. They must cope with their condition.

As so brilliantly put by Savage in Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, the stupuid average Liberal mistakes Gay rights for Civil rights. Somehow, I don't see Martin Luther King Jr. putting on a skirt and makeup.

Gays are abominations. The must cope with their condition, they are NOT normal. Their wrong attraction is a perversion of God's truth. They must resisit the lust and sodomy, as do we Heterosexuals. Being gay does NOT give them a preference in God's eyes, and allowing gay marriage supports this evil and terrible sin.

Liberalism - that vague, undefinable term that people so love to use - is no more a mental disorder than Conservatism. It is a combination of social, economic and political views. It cannot be seen as a mental disorder, as it has nothing to do with the brain or human system.

Gays are not 'Abominations', and to say so is not only intolerant but extremely bigoted. They are no different to you - they merely prefer a different gender to love and have sexual intercourse with. They do not have three arms or an extra heart. You are both human beings.

Quite simply put, it is NATURAL and NORMAL. Homosexualtiy is NOT, it is a MENTAL ILLNESS that is UNCURABLE. They must cope with their condition.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness, and as such cannot, and more importantly should not be 'cured'. It is a state of sexuality; whether that be because of genetics or the environment in which someone grows up in is irrelevant at the moment.

Who says that Heterosexuality is both Natural and Normal, yet Homosexuality is not so? If you refer to the Bible to support this bigoted view, did not Jesus himself tell Christians not to judge, and that only those without sin may cast the first stone?

I don't even believe in state-sponsored marriage of any kind. Marriage is an exclusively religious ideology, and one that shouldn't be incorporated into the state. Civil unions I'm perfectly fine with, as they aren't marriage. Marriage is performed by the church, not the state. Banning gay marriage, or allowing it, both violate separation of church and state. Ending state-sponsored marriage but granting equal opportunity for civil unions is what I'd be in favor of. This distinction must be made.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness, and as such cannot, and more importantly should not be 'cured'. It is a state of sexuality; whether that be because of genetics or the environment in which someone grows up in is irrelevant at the moment.

Who says that Heterosexuality is both Natural and Normal, yet Homosexuality is not so? If you refer to the Bible to support this bigoted view, did not Jesus himself tell Christians not to judge, and that only those without sin may cast the first stone?
Ah, if not a mental illness then an illness of the soul. I am not judging, I am simply stating that homosexuality is NOT natural, the Holy Family was NOT Joseph, Bob and Jesus. Jesus ALSO said that he who did not follow the commandments would be cast into the inferno. Gays are breaking the commandments.

I don't even believe in state-sponsored marriage of any kind. Marriage is an exclusively religious ideology, and one that shouldn't be incorporated into the state. Civil unions I'm perfectly fine with, as they aren't marriage. Marriage is performed by the church, not the state. Banning gay marriage, or allowing it, both violate separation of church and state. Ending state-sponsored marriage but granting equal opportunity for civil unions is what I'd be in favor of. This distinction must be made.
What if some of us believe thatn the Church and the state should be one? Ah, but this is a topic for another thread.

Ah, if not a mental illness then an illness of the soul. I am not judging, I am simply stating that homosexuality is NOT natural, the Holy Family was NOT Joseph, Bob and Jesus. Jesus ALSO said that he who did not follow the commandments would be cast into the inferno. Gays are breaking the commandments.

By calling them unnatural, you are indeed judging them. As to Homosexuals breaking the Commandments and being 'Cast into the Inferno', what if they do not believe in God and therefore the Commandments?

What if some of us believe thatn the Church and the state should be one? Ah, but this is a topic for another thread.

An oppressive theocracy? Something akin to Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, perhaps? Where the Ten Commandments would have to be obeyed under law and pain of imprisonment and punishment? Something akin to that?

By calling them unnatural, you are indeed judging them. As to Homosexuals breaking the Commandments and being 'Cast into the Inferno', what if they do not believe in God and therefore the Commandments?
Then they are doomed to begin with. Only those who accept the truth of God and His Son Jesus the Christ will be granted salvation. By calling them unnatural, I am simply pointing out the FACTS. The Human body was made to reproduce, gays violate this basic principle. Therefore, they are NOT NATURAL, thus making them ABOMINATIONS that must CONTROL their lust and desires.

An oppressive theocracy? Something akin to Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, perhaps? Where the Ten Commandments would have to be obeyed under law and pain of imprisonment and punishment? Something akin to that?
No, a BENEVOLENT monarchy led by His Holinesss Pope Benedict the XVI, where the Church and salvation are the goals of the people, the exact opposite of the immoral anarchy you desire.

As so brillioantly put by Savage in Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, the stupuid average Liberal mistakes Gay rights ofr Civil rights. Somehow, I don't see Martin Luther King Jr. putting on a skirt and makeup.

Gays are abominations. The must cope with their condition, they are NOT normal. Their wrong attraction is a perversion of God's truth. They must resisit the lust and sodomy, as do we Heterosexuals. Being gay does NOT give them a preference in God's eyes, and allowing gay marriage supports this evil and terrible sin.

Okay, is it not true that every person is exactly as God made them? I believe it is.
Also, is it not true that sexual preference is determined by one's biology? I believe that is true as well, thus why men ussually want some o' that hot woman they see or why women ussually want some of that piece of male meat they're looking at.
And is it not true that one's biology is exactly as God made it? Afterall, biology is part of one's physical being, which was designed by God.
Therefor, just because homosexuality is not as common as heterosexuality it is by no means a perversion against God. Thus yes, there is no preference in God's eyes. Those who are gay and act it are acting as he made them, and those who are straight and act it are acting as he made them.
Only sin being supported by allowing gay marriage is the sin of being compassionate to one another, and being open minded, considerate, understanding, and tolerant of someone who isn't a perfect clone of onesself.

And the reason you'll never see MLK Jr. wearing drag is because he wasn't a drag queen. Although it's interesting you should bring him up, considering he's a powerful figure in a previous civil rights movement and at one time blacks too were widely seen as an abomination inferior to whites even though they too were guilty of no more than having the biology God gave them, just as whites had the biology God gave them.

But because my relgious beliefs demand that God's Law influence all parts of my life and my society (including government) I must insist that homosexuality be recognized as a problem which leads to sin and homosexual couples be refused any recognition under the law.

Poor guy. Believes what he is told to believe. I wonder if he has any shred of thought.

Then they are doomed to begin with. Only those who accept the truth of God and His Son Jesus the Christ will be granted salvation. By calling them unnatural, I am simply pointing out the FACTS. The Human body was made to reproduce, gays violate this basic principle. Therefore, they are NOT NATURAL, thus making them ABOMINATIONS that must CONTROL their lust and desires.

But if people do not believe in God, or the Commandments, or the fact that they are, as you say, 'Abominations', then how can they go to Heaven or Hell? And if we are to take for granted for a second that God does indeed exist, how can such a Benevolant character condemn millions of people to hell for doing something that they wish to do, that they like doing?

The fact that they are attracted to the same sex does not excuse the sin. They try and victemize themselves, "Hey, pity us, the evil Christians are killing us". No, we are fighting FOR the salvation of your souls.

The fact that they are attracted to the same sex does not excuse the sin. They try and victemize themselves, "Hey, pity us, the evil Christians are killing us". No, we are fighting FOR the salvation of your souls.

What if they do not want their souls saved? What if they are happy and content with the way that they are?

But if people do not believe in God, or the Commandments, or the fact that they are, as you say, 'Abominations', then how can they go to Heaven or Hell? And if we are to take for granted for a second that God does indeed exist, how can such a Benevolant character condemn millions of people to hell for doing something that they wish to do, that they like doing?
Because it is FUN does not make it RIGHT. This is a typical Anarchist attitude, one devoid of any moral fiber.

As so brilliantly put by Savage in Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, the stupuid average Liberal mistakes Gay rights for Civil rights. Somehow, I don't see Martin Luther King Jr. putting on a skirt and makeup.

Gays are abominations. The must cope with their condition, they are NOT normal. Their wrong attraction is a perversion of God's truth. They must resisit the lust and sodomy, as do we Heterosexuals. Being gay does NOT give them a preference in God's eyes, and allowing gay marriage supports this evil and terrible sin.

Do you honestly believe there is anything that would compel one to be gay? There isn't one psychological association in the world that argues that homosexuality is a choice. All believe you are born a homosexual. Are you going to allow your bigoted, unfounded beliefs get in the way of justice?

Do you think you can rehabilitate a homosexual? It never works. It has been tried. It's the equivalent of me attempting to change your natural sexual disposition toward something else.

Let me ask you this: what are your sins? Is it not true that one sin is no worse than another? Do you support a federal ban on lying? Or making all women wear veils, be subortinate to men, ban the eating of pork, or banning the worship of any god but God? Even I, a Christian, would not want this for my nation. You are a sinner, just like any homosexual would be. You are just as much of an abomination, as am I. I resent your bigotry, as it is pure hypocracy that I will not tolerate.

What if they do not want their souls saved? What if they are happy and content with the way that they are?
Then we are wasting our time.

The Human body was made to reproduce, gays violate this basic principle.

Im going to go along with an argument said by someone else on these forums:

"The hands werent made to play piano, BAN ALL PIANOS!!"

Also, viruses reproduce, and in doing so they kill humans, is that good? Homosexuality never killed a human. Actually, it has technically. People are killed for being homosexual. So whats better? Homosexuality or murder?

The fact that they are attracted to the same sex does not excuse the sin. They try and victemize themselves, "Hey, pity us, the evil Christians are killing us". No, we are fighting FOR the salvation of your souls.

So you're saying God himself purposely makes people to be sinners? Seems odd, but that would explain why the world is the interesting place it is...

No, a BENEVOLENT monarchy led by His Holinesss Pope Benedict the XVI, where the Church and salvation are the goals of the people, the exact opposite of the immoral anarchy you desire.

Where did I say I desire an immoral anarchy? Perhaps I should focus the question then. Please describe this Benevolent Monarchy and the society. What are its goals and rules, its punishments?

100% yes

Because it is FUN does not make it RIGHT. This is a typical Anarchist attitude, one devoid of any moral fiber.

So because someone deviates from the Ten Commandments and the rules set down by the Bible, they are automatically devoid of moral fibre? Are you not now judging people? Are you without sin, to do so?

:p:) marriage is mostly a religious thing...homosexuals have nothing to do with religion. I agree with the civil union thing as long as they have nothing to do with religion I really dont care.
but since Im "close minded" I voted no...;) :D

Then we are wasting our time.

Then why not simply ask them; if they are happy with what they are, then simply leave them alone.

Do you honestly believe there is anything that would compel one to be gay? There isn't one psychological association in the world that argues that homosexuality is a choice. All believe you are born a homosexual. Are you going to allow your bigoted, unfounded beliefs get in the way of justice?

Let me ask you this: what are your sins? Is it not true that one sin is no worse than another? Do you support a federal ban on lying? Or making all women wear veils, be subortinate to men, ban the eating of pork, or banning the worship of any god but God? Even I, a Christian, would not want this for my nation. You are a sinner, just like any homosexual would be. You are just as much of an abomination, as am I. I resent your bigotry, as it is pure hypocracy that I will not tolerate.
You are rather ignorant on matters of Christianity. Killing someone is quite clearly a rather large sin, one that would deserve far more severe punishments then stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. Do you support a ban on fiath? Are you trying to drive millions into the fiery pits of hell? Homosexuality IS a choice, you can ignore the temptation, or you can succumb to it. It is quite simple.

Where did I say I desire an immoral anarchy? Perhaps I should focus the question then. Please describe this Benevolent Monarchy and the society. What are its goals and rules, its punishments?
As I said before, the Church and the state are one. I do not have time to explain it now, but TG Sol Giuldor and we can continue this debate later.

You are rather ignorant on matters of Christianity. Killing someone is quite clearly a rather large sin, one that would deserve far more severe punishments then stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. Do you support a ban on fiath? Are you trying to drive millions into the fiery pits of hell? Homosexuality IS a choice, you can ignore the temptation, or you can succumb to it. It is quite simple.

How do you know that homosexuality is a choice? I have met and debated with many homosexuals, both men and women, and I have not met any as of yet who have said it is a choice.

So because someone deviates from the Ten Commandments and the rules set down by the Bible, they are automatically devoid of moral fibre? Are you not now judging people? Are you without sin, to do so?
Desiring to do anything just because it "feels good" IS a complete and total lack of moral fiber.

Repeat after me Sol Giuldor: 'Seperation of church and state'

Gay marriage should not exist for one reason. Marriage is the legal union between a man and a woman. Allowing gay marriage is changing the definition of what has been for thousands of years. Its like saying the sky is now green instead of blue. For thousands of years, the sky has been known as blue, but now someone wants to call it green. It just doensn't make sense. Believe me folks, I have no problem with gay people. I was the vice president for my high schools GSA (gay-straight alliance). I fully support the legalization of civil unions, but it can't be called marriage.

Homosexuality IS a choice, you can ignore the temptation, or you can succumb to it. It is quite simple.

Sorry, sexuality isnt a choice. You see a pair of boobs and are automatically turned on. You dont manually flip a switch, it happens unconsciously.

Gay marriage should not exist for one reason. Marriage is the legal union between a man and a woman. Allowing gay marriage is changing the definition of what has been for thousands of years. Its like saying the sky is now green instead of blue.

Stupid quote of the century.

As I said before, the Church and the state are one.

Yeah under the taliban maybe. Not in America. Dont like it? Get out. People have fought and died for that religious freedom, you are just insulting them.

No, a BENEVOLENT monarchy led by His Holinesss Pope Benedict the XVI, where the Church and salvation are the goals of the people, the exact opposite of the immoral anarchy you desire.

I was with you until that statement.

The Pope is no less human than the rest of us. I see no reason why the Pope should rule over us all. But I see plenty of reasons why he shouldn't.

Calvin's Geneva is the best example I can think of for the way a government ought to be run.

Sol, how the hell can you justify saying homosexuality is a choice? Do you have one legitimate document outside of the Bible that adds credence to your claim?

And why should the church and state be one? Have you never studied history? Do you know how often that goes wrong? EVERY TIME. You clearly have never studied Christianity. In Matthew 5:21-28, Jesus equates committing adultery with having lust in your heart, and committing murder with having hatred in your heart. In Romans 6:23, God says each and every sin will lead to eternam condemnation. My lying is just as bad as a murderer's killing. I am no better than any other sinner, and nor are you.

Gay marriage should not exist for one reason. Marriage is the legal union between a man and a woman. Allowing gay marriage is changing the definition of what has been for thousands of years. Its like saying the sky is now green instead of blue.

There's a huge flaw there - the sky's color is determined by natural forces, whereas marriage being a legal union between a man and a woman is just simply a popular belief.
Gay marriage should exist as marriage is one person's dedication to another and it's ignorant to say that a guy can't love a guy more than any other person or that a girl can't love a girl more than any other person.

Im not gay, but dam what f*ckin right do us straight people have to say gays cant get married. Besides lots of people have givin up any respect to it already. I mean look at teh media. Famus people get married for 3 weeks then devoursed and find out there f*ckin pregnet and nobody voices a problem agianst that. Any b*tch that says thats ok and says gay marrage is wrong because its disrespectful should be shot.

Charlen: (in agreement with you) Monarchy was a popular trend for thousands of years. It doesn't make it right just because it existed for so long.

Poor guy. Believes what he is told to believe. I wonder if he has any shred of thought.

I probably have more independent thought than you do. :mad:

Only I realize my arrogance and pride and my fallacy of thought so I submit to God, not man!

Unlike others who submit themselves to their own reason which even without religioius influence has lead everyone who has tried it to ruin.

While we are on the topic of religion: http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Freuters.myway.com%2Farticle%2F20060605%2F2006-06-05T123104Z_01_L05642927_RTRIDST_0_ODD-UKRAINE-LION-DC.html

anyway...

Hofnaria, Sol...
Just come out of the closet already (http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html). We support you here.

Only I realize my arrogance and pride and my fallacy of thought so I submit to God, not man!

Sounds like an unhealthy amount of pride to me. You know thats a sin, right?

A big yes from this puppy.

As for people who argue that they object to it because of their beliefs religious beliefs have been used to explain a whole range of horrific policies through the ages, from the Inquisition in Europe and the Crusades to terrorism in the modern era.

Lets also be clear that a failure to allow gays to marry doesn't just represent a denial of a "privilege" given that the right to have one's relationship recognised by the state is a given for virtually every other group within society. By denying gays the right to marry you effectively demote gay relationships and convey a message to both gays and to the rest of society that they are both inferior and that their relationships mean less. So for everyone who stands behind their "beliefs" remember that one day some mean fucker may decide to do something nasty to you like say blow you up using the same rational.

Here's a picture

Gays----->:) :) :) :gundge: <----- Homophobes

Ciao

And also, f*ck religion in this case. The US was founded by cathlics and thats why are goverment acts like the pope with a shot gun and crack.(no offense to the guy) The costituition talks about freedom and says everyone is free. Well taking away someones right to marry who the f*ck they want is taking away one of those freedoms. Also taking a way someones right to marry who they love is predgidous.

Unlike others who submit themselves to their own reason which even without religioius influence has lead everyone who has tried it to ruin.

Mmhmm...and the sun revolves around the earth right?

Tempest: The Founding Fathers weren't even Christian. They were Deists. They believed in God, but none of his miracles, and did not believe in faith-based religion. They thought that a belief in God must be based on logic and reason, not faith.

Yes, and no friend of mine would vote 'no'.

Sounds like an unhealthy amount of pride to me. You know thats a sin, right?

It's one of my vices. Along with sloth and another sin which shall go unnamed. But I realize it and repent of it. That was the point of my statement. But there was some arrogance oozing off that statement, so I'm sorry for that.

And also, f*ck religion in this case. The US was founded by cathlics and thats why are goverment acts like the pope with a shot gun and crack.(no offense to the guy) The costituition talks about freedom and says everyone is free. Well taking away someones right to marry who the f*ck they want is taking away one of those freedoms. Also taking a way someones right to marry who they love is predgidous.

Ummm.... The US was not founded by Catholics. Most of the Founding Fathers were either Deists or Protestants of one form or another.

Actually, no government should be involved in issuing marriage certificates. That should be the role of private religions. If a particular religion wants to allow gays to marry, more power to them. If a particular religion doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, more power to them. Everyone goes to the church of their choice to get married (in some cases, The Atheist Club).

But leave government out of it.

[QUOTE=LizardQueen]
[As for people who argue that they object to it because of their beliefs religious beliefs have been used to explain a whole range of horrific policies through the ages, from the Inquisition in Europe and the Crusades to terrorism in the modern era.]

I am in total agreement with this. The cathlic church f*cked up a lot of stuff and then use religeon to justify it.

Marriage as recognized by a governing body for legality purposes has absolutely nothing to do with love. It is recognized for the purposes of an economic unit and nothing more than that. To understand why a government recognizes marriage you first have to understand what motivates a government TO recognize it...and love isn't in there anywhere.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize we were going to allow the governments economic views rule over our moral ones.
Though this does fly in the face of earlier attempts to get more people to marry in the US (straight people that is, Republican governments, bible fully in hand, would never look towards anything but straight marriages) and I am sure it is such financial concerns now that make Bush want to restrict marriages.

It's one of my vices. Along with sloth and another sin which shall go unnamed. But I realize it and repent of it. That was the point of my statement. But there was some arrogance oozing off that statement, so I'm sorry for that.

LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.

Actualy the goverment shouldn't be involved in marrage. It is a personal thing after all.

LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.
Matthew, 7.1-5:
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
So, um....what were you saying?

But that also goes for those who judge homosexuals. If you are really as Christian as you pretend to be why exactly do you insist on judging everything and anyone, huh?

(I love ranting)

Any to f*cking arrogant to treat gay people with resect should burn cause they aren't helping anybody

Respect for marriage is a pretty weak defense from charges of intolerance. 1) It implies that gays marrying is disrespectful. Why? And is marriage going to feel dissed and storm off in a huff? 2) Are you also against divorce? How about marriages of convenience? Trophy spouses? Loveless marriages that stay together for the kids? There's plenty built in to marriage to suggest some flexibility.

My hope is that you would respect YOUR marriage, let other people respect theirs, and keep your opinions on other people's lifestyles out of legislation.

I am in total agreement with this. The cathlic church f*cked up a lot of stuff and then use religeon to justify it.

Technically, the Catholic Church is on average more liberal than the Protestant Church.

Just had another read through the posts and found some people who actually claimed some interesting things. I'll only respond to one

That gays can't reproduce and thus shouldn't be allowed to marry:
Ok accepting this for a moment lets be fair and apply this across the board. Lets start by banning people who are infertile from getting married, god created them too right? So I guess he intended for them to be treated in the same way. Lets ban women over the age of 60 from getting married given that it is virtually impossible for a woman to conceive once she hits menopause. Lets also create a rule that requires every married couple to have at least one child in the course of their marriage or they get put in prison. Only fair ;)

And Sol, under my religion you'd go to hell :upyours:

Ciao

Also Im freinds with gay people and they are prety cool. Besides gay people have been around ever since civilization. Its no like its new. So stop treating it that way. We have proof that it goes all the way back to Rome, the fathers of technology

Matthew, 7.1-5:

So, um....what were you saying?

I think we are in agreement, just using 2 different stories from the bible to do so...

Technically, the Catholic Church is on average more liberal than the Protestant Church.
Um... this being the Church which is against all abortion, all forms of contraception, and so on? Oh, of course, also virulently antihomosexual.... unless the homosexual turns out to be a paedohpile and a cardinal of course.

Kazus, probably... I just like Matthew more, or that quote anyway!

That's true. The Greeks, in fact, were openly homosexual (But of course they were avowedly "unfaithful" and "blasphemous", so that doesn't make much of an argument.)

It's also true that homosexuality occurs in nature, as a natural response to overpopulation (don't you dare try to say that the human race isn't overpopulated.)

Stop being so intolerant of his beleifs. After all, tolerance is what the gay community preaches...
Stop telling others what they should do. :headbang:

Christian teachings are so confusing and the people who go by them are also sometimes confusing. I.e. "oh it's in the Old testament so it's not relevant" THAT'S HALF YOUR BOOK!!!!

Seriously the founding belief of christianity is basically "do unto others as you would be done unto yourself" which is probably very bad english and definately not an actualy quote but it's the jist, be good to others cos you wouldn't want them treating you badly.

The government has to be involved in marriage as it is a legal agreement but religion has not place in government (see Northern Ireland)

Religion in government empowers the few and alienates the many. But the people it doesn't apply to can't say "hey get religion out of my government institutions" because that wouldn't be respecting people's religious views.

I vote yes
The divorce rate for Heterosexual couples is over 50% so I don't understand how allowing other to get married when half just break their vows in some form another, mainly the till death do us part, sickness and in health, promise and love and cherish...
Not giving people the right to love
that sounds more ridiculous to me than the two of the same gender being wed

LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.

And... What stone have I cast? Have I told anyone that they will perish in eternal fire? Have I taken on the role of Judge of Souls? No, I have merely reflected the words of God, who is Judge of Souls. Therefore, I have cast no stone but have been the pebble God has cast to warn some of the stoning that will come later if they should not repent.

As for judging and the Bible, God commands that Christians judge: actions, words, motives, thoughts, ideas, etc.

But He forbids the judging of souls. That is His alone.

Um... this being the Church which is against all abortion, all forms of contraception, and so on? Oh, of course, also virulently antihomosexual.... unless the homosexual turns out to be a paedohpile and a cardinal of course.

Kazus, probably... I just like Matthew more, or that quote anyway!
But that wasn't to say that they are liberal. They're just more sensible.

The majority of the problem as it stands here in the United States is stirred up by the protestant church.

That's true. The Greeks, in fact, were openly homosexual (But of course they were avowedly "unfaithful" and "blasphemous", so that doesn't make much of an argument.)
Actually they were openly bisexual, which is probably far worse a sin as it neccessarily forces polyamory...
Krush... they're in the majority. What do you expect?

Xranate, read Matthew again. it leaves room for no exceptions.

Think about it from there point of view.

Some rich powerful jack a$$: You can't get married because I say its wrong.

Well f*ck that. You would feel like sh*t if thousands of people told you that.

And... What stone have I cast? Have I told anyone that they will perish in eternal fire? Have I taken on the role of Judge of Souls? No, I have merely reflected the words of God, who is Judge of Souls. Therefore, I have cast no stone but have been the pebble God has cast to warn some of the stoning that will come later if they should not repent.

The stone of discrimination. You are saying gay love should not be recognized because its against YOUR precious religion.

As for judging and the Bible, God commands that Christians judge: actions, words, motives, thoughts, ideas, etc.

But He forbids the judging of souls. That is His alone.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to seem like youre actions are justified.

Stop telling others what they should do. :headbang:

That makes sense. :rolleyes:

Your telling him to stop doing something which is disobeying your own advice.

And... What stone have I cast? Have I told anyone that they will perish in eternal fire? Have I taken on the role of Judge of Souls? No, I have merely reflected the words of God, who is Judge of Souls. Therefore, I have cast no stone but have been the pebble God has cast to warn some of the stoning that will come later if they should not repent.

As for judging and the Bible, God commands that Christians judge: actions, words, motives, thoughts, ideas, etc.

But He forbids the judging of souls. That is His alone.
Wait, I thought "Judge not, lest ye be judged?"

Think about it from there point of view.

Some rich powerful jack a$$: You can't get married because I say its wrong.

Well f*ck that. You would feel like sh*t if thousands of people told you that.

I can't run around killing people in civilian life, no matter how good it would make me feel, because thousands of people are going to tell me it's wrong.

It's called representative democracy. You get the government the voters deserve.

Wait, I thought "Judge not, lest ye be judged?"

I'd say that's a pretty integral part of chrisitanity

Judge who you want but if there is a god you will regret it

The stone of discrimination. You are saying gay love should not be recognized because its against YOUR precious religion.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to seem like youre actions are justified.

That makes no sense. My religion teaches elitism of religions, so why would I not discriminate?

And I'm not telling myself that. It says it all right there in the Bible. You may not care, but I haven't thought this up myself.

LOL those for gay marriage say that religious teachings are wrong and yet marriage is a religious ceremony, personally im against homosexuality, and dont start saying i dont understand it as the concept although weird is very clear indeed.

I'd say that's a pretty integral part of chrisitanity
And just the same, a forgotten part.

That makes no sense. My religion teaches elitism of religions, so why would I not discriminate?

Uh, what religion is this?

I can't run around killing people in civilian life, no matter how good it would make me feel, because thousands of people are going to tell me it's wrong.

It's called representative democracy. You get the government the voters deserve.

you get the government your voting system allows you to have. You get the government a % of society votes for not the one you deserve

Also cosider that the bible has been revised and mis translate and it does contadict itself

u have my full support as well!!!!!:)

That makes no sense. My religion teaches elitism of religions, so why would I not discriminate?

And I'm not telling myself that. It says it all right there in the Bible. You may not care, but I haven't thought this up myself.
It's still discrimination. Doesn't matter if it's "In the Bible", because it is yet still discrimination.

I love how "Christians" are lumped into one monolithic viewpoint.

If I had started a thread, and lumped "Muslims" into one monolithic viewpoint, people would be jumping all over me.

It's not hard to see where peoples' bias lies.

Here's a few famous people who were gay, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Virginia Woolf, Tchaikovsky and Oscar Wilde just to name a few. Alexander the Great was Bi-sexual so were Greta Garbo, Errol Fllyn and (apparently) James Dean.

Of course Sol hates these people and god hates them too and they shouldn't exist. :rolleyes:

Given all the contributions these folks alone made it doesn't strike me as particularly utilitarian to treat gays badly.

How exciting.

Ciao.

I love how "Christians" are lumped into one monolithic viewpoint.

If I had started a thread, and lumped "Muslims" into one monolithic viewpoint, people would be jumping all over me.

It's not hard to see where peoples' bias lies.


So True

LOL those for gay marriage say that religious teachings are wrong and yet marriage is a religious ceremony, personally im against homosexuality, and dont start saying i dont understand it as the concept although weird is very clear indeed.
Apparently you don’t understand correct grammar and sentence structure, cause that was awful painful to try and figure out exactly what you were trying to say.

Wait, I thought "Judge not, lest ye be judged?"

Here's a piece of advice: Never read a Bible verse.

Always read several Bible verses. Always read the verses around the one you want to study also. Really, you should read the whole Bible.

Juge not lest you be judged is speaking to the judging of souls: persons taking on the role of God and condemning sinners to Hell, when they have no authority to do so.

Civil unions, yes, but that's not the same as marriage. Perhaps you could include a civil union option?

This is all gays really want, is the legal benefits of a marriage. They do NOT wanto join a church and try to change it's laws with legislation. Obviously, you can't exactly amend the Bible with government authority. Gays are people too, and if two are together they need the same financial benefits that legally married couples have. They don't want to be hippies and just "move in together". Obviously, since you all say they are going to hell, most gays aren't even Christian! So why the hell do you care whether they go in front of a freaking judge and say "I do?"!?

And another thing, there has been some studies that may show that people are born gay. I mean, come on, that kid off of schoolhouse rock? ;)

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_biol.htm

Here's a piece of advice: Never read a Bible verse.

Always read several Bible verses. Always read the verses around the one you want to study also. Really, you should read the whole Bible.

Juge not lest you be judged is speaking to the judging of souls: persons taking on the role of God and condemning sinners to Hell, when they have no authority to do so.
Good advice … kind of like reading all the versus around the anti-gay Leviticus quote … and getting a good laugh from them

Uh, what religion is this?

It's called Biblical Christianity or Orthodox Christianity (Not Eastern Orthodox) or Fundamentalism.

*Gasp!* :rolleyes:

Here's a piece of advice: Never read a Bible verse.

Always read several Bible verses. Always read the verses around the one you want to study also. Really, you should read the whole Bible.

Juge not lest you be judged is speaking to the judging of souls: persons taking on the role of God and condemning sinners to Hell, when they have no authority to do so.
Yet what I was quoting was a very someone claiming he had the Biblical right to take on the "role of God" in a sense and condemn sinners to Hell.

Here's a piece of advice: Never read a Bible verse.

Always read several Bible verses. Always read the verses around the one you want to study also. Really, you should read the whole Bible.

Juge not lest you be judged is speaking to the judging of souls: persons taking on the role of God and condemning sinners to Hell, when they have no authority to do so.
Verses one to five of Matthew 7, all saying the same thing and not contradicted by vbeyond but it adds nothing either.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Now where does this specify souls, huh?

Apparently you don’t understand correct grammar and sentence structure, cause that was awful painful to try and figure out exactly what you were trying to say.

If your IQ isnt high enough to understand that then i wonder how you cope with the moral issues raised in this post? :)

Verses one to five of Matthew 7, all saying the same thing and not contradicted by vbeyond but it adds nothing either.

Now where does this specify souls, huh?
Very good point … Seems rather earthly grounded to me

Also cosider that the bible has been revised and mis translate and it does contadict itself

That's for another thread. In fact all my posts are beginning to be for another thread. So, I'm going to go: it annoys me when my threads are hijacked however unintentionally. If you want to continue debating you can TG me.

Ok shut the f*ck up about teh judging stuff. The only judge that really matters in this Thread is teh kind that marries people. So please drop it

No, its unnatural.
Yes, marriage is unnatural.

And another thing, there has been some studies that may show that people are born gay. I mean, come on, that kid off of schoolhouse rock? ;)

Actually virtually all the reputable studies have shown that homosexually is a direct result of how a person is raised, some scientists have even suggested that it's genetic but they haven't proved that. It's not a choice anymore than a person's race is a choice. For bi-sexuals a choice may exist but when you refer to a homosexual you mean someone who is attracted exclusively to people of the same sex. When the churches (both Protestant, Catholic and others for the record) ran schools in the United States in the 50s and 60s trying to "retrain gays" they had a universal failure rate.

Ok shut the f*ck up about teh judging stuff. The only judge that really matters in this Thread is teh kind that marries people. So please drop it
False. It matters where the marriage is judged valid by the state and for that it needs to be judged valid by the people. But other than that...

That first line in my last post was a quote from someone elses post.

And another thing, there has been some studies that may show that people are born gay. I mean, come on, that kid off of schoolhouse rock? ;)

Actually virtually all the reputable studies have shown that homosexually is a direct result of how a person is raised, some scientists have even suggested that it's genetic but they haven't proved that. It's not a choice anymore than a person's race is a choice. For bi-sexuals a choice may exist but when you refer to a homosexual you mean someone who is attracted exclusively to people of the same sex. When the churches (both Protestant, Catholic and others for the record) ran schools in the United States in the 50s and 60s trying to "retrain gays" they had a universal failure rate.
Actually, there has been evidence that greatly suggests that part of it is hardwired. Although I don't think sexuality is necessarily black and white - there's actually a scale for it.

Yes.

And some studies have shown that it is a different chemical balance, not nesicarily an inbalance, just a different mixture that determines whether individuals are gay or not.

Actually, there has been evidence that greatly suggests that part of it is hardwired. Although I don't think sexuality is necessarily black and white - there's actually a scale for it.
Ah, yes, Kinsey... no-one is gay or straight, we're all a little bit bi.

And another thing, there has been some studies that may show that people are born gay. I mean, come on, that kid off of schoolhouse rock? ;)

Actually virtually all the reputable studies have shown that homosexually is a direct result of how a person is raised, some scientists have even suggested that it's genetic but they haven't proved that. It's not a choice anymore than a person's race is a choice. For bi-sexuals a choice may exist but when you refer to a homosexual you mean someone who is attracted exclusively to people of the same sex. When the churches (both Protestant, Catholic and others for the record) ran schools in the United States in the 50s and 60s trying to "retrain gays" they had a universal failure rate.

That kid is still funny tho :p

It seems like this is all stemming from the authority the Catholic Church had after the dark ages, when everybody was trying to find some order in their lives. Stuff like homosexuality and witchcraft were easy to use as rallying scapegoats for problems. Before Christianity, homosexuality was no big deal, Greek armies usually actually preferred bys/men over women. Maybe there is still some vestigial power-tripping left over from the near-theocracy era? Control method?

Ah, yes, Kinsey... no-one is gay or straight, we're all a little bit bi.
Yes, exactly, that's the name of it.

Ah, yes, Kinsey... no-one is gay or straight, we're all a little bit bi.


this is true, Ron White proves that ;)

That kid is still funny tho :p

It seems like this is all stemming from the authority the Catholic Church had after the dark ages, when everybody was trying to find some order in their lives. Stuff like homosexuality and witchcraft were easy to use as rallying scapegoats for problems. Before Christianity, homosexuality was no big deal, Greek armies usually actually preferred bys/men over women. Maybe there is still some vestigial power-tripping left over from the near-theocracy era? Control method?
Jeez... Greek armies had one or two units (Theban Sacred Band) of "pure" homosexuals, the Greek world as a whole accepted bisexual men because, well, hey had the system of pederasty. Hell, if you weren't bisexual you weren't normal, as far as they were concerned.

Jeez... Greek armies had one or two units (Theban Sacred Band) of "pure" homosexuals, the Greek world as a whole accepted bisexual men because, well, hey had the system of pederasty. Hell, if you weren't bisexual you weren't normal, as far as they were concerned.


haha...if it wasn't for the whole STD's problem, that would solve a lot of issues on Navy ships ;) XD

lmao, as soon as someone expresses a view against an idea they are instantly branded a bible basher, "oh your being controlled by the church!", well im an atheist and im against it, people are always saying the church uses other things to hide its problems but dont people use the church to hide theirs?

It's called Biblical Christianity or Orthodox Christianity (Not Eastern Orthodox) or Fundamentalism.

*Gasp!* :rolleyes:

So, christianity.

Following the footsteps of christ.

Who was a man that you will never be, especially with the thoughts you have now.

Next time you ask yourself "what would jesus do?" Dont even bother. Chances are, it's something you wouldnt.

Jeez... Greek armies had one or two units (Theban Sacred Band) of "pure" homosexuals, the Greek world as a whole accepted bisexual men because, well, hey had the system of pederasty. Hell, if you weren't bisexual you weren't normal, as far as they were concerned.

Hmmmm, i'm fairly certain only the spartans had pederasty. No doubt the rest of the greeks liked a bit of a$$ as well, but not pederasty.

lmao, as soon as someone expresses a view against an idea they are instantly branded a bible basher, "oh your being controlled by the church!", well im an atheist and im against it, people are always saying the church uses other things to hide its problems but dont people use the church to hide theirs?
So what's the problem of gays? Other thna that we are treated as inferior, have fewer and less right, and are in fact inferior for society's purposes?

LQ, look at the Athenians... Socrates was odd for loving a boy who had to shave even fuzz!

Hmmmm, i'm fairly certain only the spartans had pederasty. No doubt the rest of the greeks liked a bit of a$$ as well, but not pederasty.

the Spartans were horny bastards. like boys a little *too* much mebbe. preferred boys over women, most of them. women were for breeding purposes

lmao, as soon as someone expresses a view against an idea they are instantly branded a bible basher, "oh your being controlled by the church!", well im an atheist and im against it, people are always saying the church uses other things to hide its problems but dont people use the church to hide theirs?

Well if you were a true atheist surely you'd be against marriage across the board?

If you're not then your just a dumb homophobe.

New Rhun=:confused: :mp5:

Homophobes are bad news

the Spartans were horny bastards. like boys a little *too* much mebbe. preferred boys over women, most of them. women were for breeding purposes
And "boys" were screwed by others in their military unit to increase the cohesiveness and incentive to stand so as not to be disgraced before others (ie, lovers) in the unit.

Well if you were a true atheist surely you'd be against marriage across the board?

If you're not then your just a dumb homophobe.

New Rhun=:confused: :mp5:

Homophobes are bad news

I agree with the idea of marriage as the unity of two people, and im not homophobic, homophobic meaning someone whos scared of homosexuals, whereas i just think they should be publicly hung

And "boys" were screwed by others in their military unit to increase the cohesiveness and incentive to stand so as not to be disgraced before others (ie, lovers) in the unit.

ahahaha.....ha.

priceless.

Wonder how those boys turned out?

You know what? This is 2006. You should just shed your animosity, live up to it, and suck a cock every now and then without guilt. The world would be a much happier place.

I agree with the idea of marriage as the unity of two people, and im not homophobic, homophobic meaning someone whos scared of homosexuals, whereas i just think they should be publicy hung
Oh... how nice for us. You don't hate us, you just wish you were in Iran, huh? because they do that there... watch a few hangings and see if you still think that. And if you don't get what I think of you, try harder.

I agree with the idea of marriage as the unity of two people, and im not homophobic, homophobic meaning someone whos scared of homosexuals, whereas i just think they should be publicy hung


Ever heard of a thing called slang, yeah, that thing that modifies the true meanings of words? Yeah, by slang definition, you ARE a homophobe. And not that great of an atheist either.

I agree with the idea of marriage as the unity of two people, and im not homophobic, homophobic meaning someone whos scared of homosexuals, whereas i just think they should be publicy hung

Ok firstly I think you meant "union of two people", secondly I think you meant "who's" instead of whos and thirdly I think you meant "publicly" you awful, nasty, ignorant and (based on your spelling) stupid human being.

For you New Ruhn :upyours: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Enjoy sweet cakes.

Ciao

ahahaha.....ha.

priceless.

Wonder how those boys turned out?
Hey, I never said it was a good idea, just fact...
And it wasn't rape. It was expected (and nonpenetrative); the boys would be all Spartiates, so think about that... other than serious militaristic tendencies already inherent in the society they turned out well. How about looking at Athenians? The same occured there just not in a military context.

there you go again, you believe that just because im against your beliefs im simple minded, well since I believe that your beliefs are wrong and you believe the same about mine, this argument is dead locked.

Hey, I never said it was a good idea, just fact...
And it wasn't rape. It was expected (and nonpenetrative); the boys would be all Spartiates, so think about that... other than serious militaristic tendencies already inherent in the society they turned out well. How about looking at Athenians? The same occured there just not in a military context.

I'm sure not all of the spartans were gentle and played nicey nice :eek:

Nobodies perfect XD

I'm sure not all of the spartans were gentle and played nicey nice :eek:

Nobodies perfect XD
No shit they didn't, they went and murdered helots... but how about the Athenians? The artists, the great cuture, the philosophy... the same thing happened in Athens!
there you go again, you believe that just because im against your beliefs im simple minded, well since I believe that your beliefs are wrong and you believe the same about mine, this argument is dead locked.
How 'bout justifying your beliefs, huh?

there you go again, you believe that just because im against your beliefs im simple minded, well since I believe that your beliefs are wrong and you believe the same about mine, this argument is dead locked.

No, his point is that you have no possible justification for your beliefs other than "lol fags r gross". And yeah, if you can't justify it, it's simple-minded.

there you go again, you believe that just because im against your beliefs im simple minded, well since I believe that your beliefs are wrong and you believe the same about mine, this argument is dead locked.

So you're beliefs are...hanging all of the people of a certain group...?

Somebody already tried that, his name was Hitler I believe... did you know that along with the 6 million Jews he slaughtered, he also killed some 5 odd million others who were, among other things, gay, mentally retarded, crippled, or just stood out?

No, his point is that you have no possible justification for your beliefs other than "lol fags r gross". And yeah, if you can't justify it, it's simple-minded.

What he said.

Ok firstly I think you meant "union of two people", secondly I think you meant "who's" instead of whos and thirdly I think you meant "publicly" you awful, nasty, ignorant and (based on your spelling) stupid human being.

For you New Ruhn :upyours: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Enjoy sweet cakes.

Ciao

no i meant unity meaning them becoming one, and if you have to rely on insulting me to get your point across then it must be a really bad one.

So you're beliefs are...hanging all of the people of a certain group...?

Somebody already tried that, his name was Hitler I believe... did you know that along with the 6 million Jews he slaughtered, he also killed some 5 odd million others who were, among other things, gay, mentally retarded, crippled, or just stood out?
Actually that was the far less painful method of gassing them... xyklon 5 I think, though I may well be wrong...
no i meant unity meaning them becoming one, and if you have to rely on insulting me to get your point across then it must be a really bad one.
So you mean basically marriage... wait, since when did that result in them being any more thna a loving couple bound in marriage, huh?

what is beleifs? anyways, I WILL not be tolerant of what he said. No way not now, not ever. Tolerance is for people with sane ideas. This is just like telling black people back when segregation was in style that it's acceptable to have different water fountains, bathrooms, schools, etc for black people. No it's not right.
Then you are a hypocrite. People have the right to believe in what they wish, no matter how insane you think it is. I am against gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a Nazi, it means I just don't think its right. I don't think homosexuality is natural.

Why not a third option? "States' Rights to declare for themselves whether or not to allow such an act." A similar line of thought is being requested for abortion and various drugs.