NationStates Jolt Archive

Today, I am about to shock my Conservative friends, yes I a Conservative myself, I do believe in smaller taxes, and smaller and limited government. I also like to have as much freedom as I can under the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Keeping within the spirit of my political ideals, I believe that gays and lesbian should get married and have the same benefits as hetrosexual couples. Why you might ask? Well, the Republican would like you to think that they are protecting the scanity of marriage, but we have a 50% divorce rate in this country, scanity of marriage went out the windows a looonnngggg time ago. I would also like to point to Hollywood, a place were people marry and divorce more often than I change underwear! If anyone ruining the scanity of marriage, it's those damn hollywood couples who only get married for the publicity. Let me ask yall this, would it really matter to you, personally, if Adam and John get married? I mean how does that interfear into your personal life, or into your life at all? I mean us straight people get to talk about our wives and husband, I say we should give our gay and lesbian counterpart the same opporunity. If the Republican really want to "protect" the sancity of marriage, they would allow gays and lesbian to get married, and enforce the idea that you marry someone because you love them, and that you can't see yourself being without that person. Marriage isn't about money, or security for life, it's about love. The Republican should try to enforce that when it comes with the scanity of marriage. Also, they should ban Hollywood couples from getting married and divorce so many damn often!

*steps off soapbox*

At least one conservative has some sense. :D

*applause*

Make that two conservatives.

Everyone has the right to love someone in this world, and if that person is of the same sex, so be it.

Hear hear.

Hooray for you!! Its already hapened here in the UK and to all those who believe it is evil blah blah blah I ask you when is happiness evil?

Hooray for you!! Its already hapened here in the UK and to all those who believe it is evil blah blah blah I ask you when is happiness evil?

I guess the people who are against it thinks that it'll turn them gay! Jeez how insecure in your sexuality do you have to be to worry about a thing like that?

I would want to see what ol Pres Bush would be saying if one of his kids were gay. Dick Cheney's daughter is and you can see how that affected his position on the matter. I wonder if daddy Bush would still be so hell bent. I myself don't believe in being married. Out of my entire family only my parent's marrige has lasted. Also, most of the Gays/Lesbians are not trying to get married to get married under the eyes of God, they are doing it for all the little nitpicky benifits. If the Government were to get rid of those then the problem would dissapear, or if they were smart they would just give all those benifits to Civil Unions and that would also solve the problem.

What ever happened to "the paragraph"?
Anyway, civil unions are legal aren't they? If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal. Not that that's bad, I'm not "normal" in any sense of the word, but we'd be saying "gay is just as natural, as straight". And that is simply not true. I'll bet you guys will be saying to legalize animal-to-human marrige next.

What ever happened to "the paragraph"?
Anyway, civil unions are legal aren't they? If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal. Not that that's bad, I'm not "normal" in any sense of the word, but we'd be saying "gay is just as natural, as straight". And that is simply not true. I'll bet you guys will be saying to legalize animal-to-human marrige next.
The fact that you can't see the irony in your statement is both ammusing and sad.

The fact that you can't see the irony in your statement is both ammusing and sad.
Really? A lot of my fencing buddies are pretty queer. I am, myself. Is it irony not to have anything agaist myself?

If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal.

When you think you've read all the stupid "reasons" for not allowing same sex marriages, someone comes along and surprises you with something even stupider... *sigh*

What ever happened to "the paragraph"?
Anyway, civil unions are legal aren't they? If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal. Not that that's bad, I'm not "normal" in any sense of the word, but we'd be saying "gay is just as natural, as straight". And that is simply not true.

Actually it *is* just as natural as straight. Both occur in nature. Both are feelings.
What legalising the marriage would say is that society acknowledges that the relationship does not harm anyone and that it has value.

I agree with the premsis of this thread and I am actully pleased that there has only been one idiot on here so far that disagrees with the idea. It is promising for the future that most people do in fact support the idea and that the best arguement that the other people can come up with is bullshit.

No, Only Lesbians, wed be know as the Gay country, I dont want that!

No, Only Lesbians, wed be know as the Gay country, I dont want that!

Currently you are known as the "warcrazy country of stupid fat people" in the rest of the world. I think "Gay country" would be an improvement.

I think "Gay country" would be an improvement.

It's certainly more than they deserve.

Today, I am about to shock my Conservative friends, yes I a Conservative myself, I do believe in smaller taxes, and smaller and limited government. I also like to have as much freedom as I can under the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Keeping within the spirit of my political ideals, I believe that gays and lesbian should get married and have the same benefits as hetrosexual couples. Why you might ask? Well, the Republican would like you to think that they are protecting the scanity of marriage, but we have a 50% divorce rate in this country, scanity of marriage went out the windows a looonnngggg time ago. I would also like to point to Hollywood, a place were people marry and divorce more often than I change underwear! If anyone ruining the scanity of marriage, it's those damn hollywood couples who only get married for the publicity. Let me ask yall this, would it really matter to you, personally, if Adam and John get married? I mean how does that interfear into your personal life, or into your life at all? I mean us straight people get to talk about our wives and husband, I say we should give our gay and lesbian counterpart the same opporunity. If the Republican really want to "protect" the sancity of marriage, they would allow gays and lesbian to get married, and enforce the idea that you marry someone because you love them, and that you can't see yourself being without that person. Marriage isn't about money, or security for life, it's about love. The Republican should try to enforce that when it comes with the scanity of marriage. Also, they should ban Hollywood couples from getting married and divorce so many damn often!

*steps off soapbox*

Ur right it doesnt effect my personal life but look at it this way,there are lots of kids to adopt and a lot of artificial encimination going on,if gay/lesbians get married they'll probably do one or the other,no real problem except that sooner or later everone will be gay(far in the future)no big deal,now lets say for some reason less people have babies,what will that do?make us extinct,go ahead and be gay,but we cant look at this as though we're not going to frown upon it because in reality you're choosing you sexual preferences over the human race*steps off stage*

What ever happened to "the paragraph"?
Anyway, civil unions are legal aren't they? If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal. Not that that's bad, I'm not "normal" in any sense of the word, but we'd be saying "gay is just as natural, as straight". And that is simply not true. I'll bet you guys will be saying to legalize animal-to-human marrige next.

Wow, I continue to be horrified at the level of idiocy I see on these forums. :rolleyes:

First of all, a civil union is not the same as marriage. Second, you say you have "nothing against" gays and are not "biased' and then turn around and say they are "not normal". Make up your mind, doofus. Define NORMAL. Normal as in heterosexual, or normal as in human or normal as in "Just like me"? To homosexuals, homosexuality is NATURAL TO THEM, therefore it is. Then you equate gay marriage to marrying animals. So it would be safe to say that you see homosexuals as animals, right?

You must have some pretty thick calluses on your knuckes from dragging on the ground...:rolleyes:

come on, over a page, and no-one has psoted the slogon yet?

I suppose I shall have to do it then:

"I only support gay marrige if both chicks are hot" :D

Currently you are known as the "warcrazy country of stupid fat people" in the rest of the world. I think "Gay country" would be an improvement.

way too true. here (Australia) America is viewed by most as THE worst country in the world. I am white, descending back to Britain, as are many of my friends and peers, yet no-one CARES about colour difference, whereas every joke against America is the joke of the school. And sorry, I know it's not the fault of the American ppl, just their government (which is also funny in that apprently they/you find it appalling to badmouth them, whereas we LOVE to hate our government)

But back on to the point...marriage is not a neccessity to recognise the bonds between two people. It was invented by Christians (DO correct me if i'm wrong) and so is more religious in my mind. I'm gay, yet marriage (at this stage, 15) does not seem like something i'd want with a guy. You can still live with someone, you can still vow never to leave them, you can even have a big ceremony and tell all your friends, it just won't be recognised absolutely officially. It's not like marriage is needed to bond two properly anyway, it's called DIVORCE! A gay marriage doesn't have to be a marriage if you are not allowed to legally wed where you live, you can be far more modern and out there if you call it something else, like a ceremony recognising your love. It would probably cost less too.

Of course, on the other hand there is the principle of the matter. That being allowed to wed recognises us for who we are, and shows acceptance with the community. It would a great thing in many ways, and I'm certainly not against the idea of gay marriage, just that some ppl are a bit over-the-top, both the gays AND conservative/religiousy types.

Wow, I continue to be horrified at the level of idiocy I see on these forums. :rolleyes:

First of all, a civil union is not the same as marriage. Second, you say you have "nothing against" gays and are not "biased' and then turn around and say they are "not normal". Make up your mind, doofus. Define NORMAL. Normal as in heterosexual, or normal as in human or normal as in "Just like me"? To homosexuals, homosexuality is NATURAL TO THEM, therefore it is. Then you equate gay marriage to marrying animals. So it would be safe to say that you see homosexuals as animals, right?

You must have some pretty thick calluses on your knuckes from dragging on the ground...:rolleyes:
you forget, the guy who posted that said he WAS gay and that he liked his fencing buddies:fluffle:

But back on to the point...marriage is not a neccessity to recognise the bonds between two people. It was invented by Christians (DO correct me if i'm wrong) and so is more religious in my mind.

The concept of marriage predates Christianity by several millenia - though they can make a claim to be responsible for the "romantic" associations people currently have when they hear the word.

Of course, we do recognise the marriages of many other religions as equally valid - so if wwe make marriage a purely religious affair all the gays have to do is find or start a religion that allows them to marry.

. It was invented by Christians (DO correct me if i'm wrong)

You're wrong. Jews got married before Jesus was even born (were Joseph and Marie not married?), and I'm pretty sure marriage existed before the Jews as well. DO correct me if I'm wrong, but marriage cannot be traced back to a single religion, it's been there since the dawn of civilization.


As for the idiot proposing that allowing gay marriage would eventually turn the whole population gay and lead to the exstinction of the human race, I can only recommend getting some minor education before forming "valid" opinions.

Edit: Damnit, Alma got here first.

Land rights for gay whales, now!

Ur right it doesnt effect my personal life but look at it this way,there are lots of kids to adopt and a lot of artificial encimination going on,if gay/lesbians get married they'll probably do one or the other,no real problem except that sooner or later everone will be gay(far in the future)no big deal,now lets say for some reason less people have babies,what will that do?make us extinct,go ahead and be gay,but we cant look at this as though we're not going to frown upon it because in reality you're choosing you sexual preferences over the human race*steps off stage*

Everyone will be gay? Just like most people having straight parents today means everyone is straight, right? :rolleyes:

Please, please, get a clue. Gay parents do not have gay children more often than straight parents. Gays marrying will not make anyone who isn't gay, gay, just like straights getting married doesn't make anyone who isn't straight, straight. And even if the impossible somehow occured - gayness was so magically awesome that it by the virtue of marriage made everyone gay - humans would not go extinct for the simple reasons that a.) gay people are not sterile; and b.) gay people are not stupid, and are thus perfectly capable of making babies and know exactly how babies are made and where they come from.

I am sorry - everyone - for ruining your jolly moods regarding this issue, but let's face the music.

It's not anyone's fault - or disease - to be gay. We shouldn't ostricize them. But come on - when you grow up noone tells you " you should be hetero", you fancy people you fancy because this is who you are.

On the other hand though, all males born should have sex with females ( and vice versa ) therefore different option makes you ( sorry ) a freak of nature. Not your fault, the nature F-d something up.

I say it's okay to be gay, but slightly wrong. No marriages for you guys, no adoption either. Some legislation is missing though, as you should be able to live normally even though you're not entirely normal. Face it.

Let's not change the world into a freakshow, okay?

regards,

Cockstein:sniper:

I'm betting both my testicles that Cockstein has never slept with a woman nor man and probably never will.

But come on - when you grow up noone tells you " you should be hetero"

Are you blind and deaf?

On the other hand though, all males born should have sex with females ( and vice versa )

No, I shouldn't at all. I should fuck men, and they should fuck me.

therefore different option makes you ( sorry ) a freak of nature. Not your fault, the nature F-d something up.

The only thing fucked up here is what you just posted.

I say it's okay to be gay, but slightly wrong. No marriages for you guys, no adoption either. Some legislation is missing though, as you should be able to live normally even though you're not entirely normal. Face it.

You know what? No, that didn't make me change my mind at all.

Let's not change the world into a freakshow, okay?

Let's not let you turn the world even more stupid, okay?

What ever happened to "the paragraph"?
Anyway, civil unions are legal aren't they? If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal. Not that that's bad, I'm not "normal" in any sense of the word, but we'd be saying "gay is just as natural, as straight". And that is simply not true. I'll bet you guys will be saying to legalize animal-to-human marrige next.

I'm tired of saying that. To be homosexual is as normal as to be straight, is just not a majoritarian practice. But human society has known homosexual relationships from the dawn of history and in other societies was the highest kind of social relationship, like the greeks. But we have inherited our sexualities ideas from christianism, who thinks sex is a dirty thing, that should be allowed just for reproduction, so..... homosexual sex is dirty as masturbation.

I think the pink mafia needs to ease off in it's persecution of innocent bigots.

I am sorry - everyone - for ruining your jolly moods regarding this issue, but let's face the music.
Ok, just as soon as you do.

It's not anyone's fault - or disease - to be gay. We shouldn't ostricize them. But come on - when you grow up noone tells you " you should be hetero", you fancy people you fancy because this is who you are.
This is off to a promising start.

On the other hand though, all males born should have sex with females ( and vice versa ) therefore different option makes you ( sorry ) a freak of nature. Not your fault, the nature F-d something up.
And here we go. Why do guys HAVE to have sex with women? There's a wide range of reasons for even non-homosexual males to not have sexual relations with women including relgious vocation to physical problems, to lack of mate, to just lack of interest (yes, it does happen). Are they ALSO "freaks of nature"?

And considering that homosexuality has been observed in the wild, how is this a freak of nature?

I say it's okay to be gay, but slightly wrong. No marriages for you guys, no adoption either. Some legislation is missing though, as you should be able to live normally even though you're not entirely normal. Face it.
Why? What possible reason should they be banned from getting married? And if you're not entirely normal, you can't get married?! Damn, I'm partial deaf due to a birth defect. I'm not entirely normal. I'm also getting married in less than two months. Should I go home to my fiancee tonight and tell her I got to cancle because I'm not all normal?

Let's not change the world into a freakshow, okay?
Far, far to late for that.

regards,

Cockstein:sniper:
Oh, and a gun smilie too. Not too good for a first post.

Marriage isn't about money, or security for life, it's about love.
The government shouldn't be telling us what marriage is and isn't about, anyway, except as it relates to legal benefits. Should I not be allowed to go into an arranged marriage, just because we don't yet love one another? Should I not be allowed to marry the hypothetical mother of my children, just because we're not in love and I can see living without her easily enough?

To paraphrase your own words, how does that interfere with your own life?

I appreciate the spirit of the post, though. :)


And this is off-topic, but:
no-one CARES about colour difference, whereas every joke against America is the joke of the school.
I have not found that to be the case at all. There's a lot of resentment against America for being "overbearing", culture-wise, but the "colour difference" is so far from being less of an issue than hate for America that I can't even laugh that statement off.

I don't mean to jump on your comment, Wonderfulliness. I hope it is less of an issue in high schools & for youngsters now than it is among older people--I'd like to think it's dying out.

By the way, I want to make notice that's marriage that's not natural at all. Anyway, I piss on "natural" behaviour, 'cause we're the less natural specie in the world.

I'm not gay or lesbian, so I'm just fighting for H U M A N rights. I don't believe in marriage for myself (I think relationships are private stuff, so the estate has nothing to do with) but I defend the right of being married for everyone who want it freely, so the stupid idea of animal-human marriage is ruined, 'cause the animal cannot understand the concept, is like marriying a five years old baby.

The goverment shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. If you can find a preist who will marry you and want to limit yourself to one person carry on. Of course that will never happen since all goverments want more power.

The goverment shouldn't have anything to do with marriage.

Seeing as the basic point of marriage is to have government recognise it, it would be kind of silly for the government not to have anything to do with it.

And why you mention priests is beyond me, as marriage in the eyes of the law has nothing to do with religion.

Here's a fairly inflamatory analagy for those of you saying that being gay is "natural" and not in any way an abnormality because it occurs in nature. Cancer occurs in nature, but it sure as hell isn't normal development. As someone further up posted, nature F--ked up.

Not that I'm trying to call homosexuality the scourge of our time or anything, I've got a fair few gay and bi-sexual friends that I've got absolutely nothing against, but where it occurs in nature it is very rarely comparable to human homosexuality. More often than not it's either due to hormonal changes (cows mounting other cows during oestrous) or (perhaps on the same note) part of growing up and something of a phase in some species. Also I don't believe that there are a great deal of cases in nature where an animal is exclusively homosexual, they just dabble a little either due to social reasons or just because they like a little variation.

When you can show me a species that is exclusively homosexual and has been thriving for generations (without any kind of asexual reproduction) then I will accept that homosexuality is natural.

Back to the topic in the OP, you may not be surprised to hear I'm against gay "marriage". I'm all in favour of civil unions between gay partners and them having exactly the same rights as married couples, but marriage is in the eyes of your respective religion and I do not believe it should be in the domain of the state. If your religion allows gay marriage then yes, I don't mind it, but I think that the state should only be able to hand out civil unions.

I'll just slip into my asbestos suit.

Back to the topic in the OP, you may not be surprised to hear I'm against gay "marriage". I'm all in favour of civil unions between gay partners and them having exactly the same rights as married couples, but marriage is in the eyes of your respective religion and I do not believe it should be in the domain of the state. If your religion allows gay marriage then yes, I don't mind it, but I think that the state should only be able to hand out civil unions.
So a coupled married before the justice of the peace isn't actually married now?

How about captains and other officals empowered to perform weddings?

When you can show me a species that is exclusively homosexual and has been thriving for generations (without any kind of asexual reproduction) then I will accept that homosexuality is natural.
I doubt that anyone wants humanity to be an "exclusively homosexual" society. And even if it were, we wouldn't suffer the same fate as animals in a similar situation: we're capable of reproducing without intercourse, these days.

Seeing as the basic point of marriage is to have government recognise it, it would be kind of silly for the government not to have anything to do with it.
Silly me, I thought it was to declare love for someone.

Here's a fairly inflamatory analagy for those of you saying that being gay is "natural" and not in any way an abnormality because it occurs in nature. Cancer occurs in nature, but it sure as hell isn't normal development. As someone further up posted, nature F--ked up.

Cancer is a disease that kills you. Homosexuality isn't a disease and doesn't kill you. Should I get you an apple and an orange so that you may compare those two, as well?

Not that I'm trying to call homosexuality the scourge of our time or anything, I've got a fair few gay and bi-sexual friends that I've got absolutely nothing against[snip]

Why is it that you know when someone says "I've gay friends and I've nothing against them" you know they are going to say something really, really homophobic and insulting to those friends, showing that that person does indeed have something against them - so much, in fact that he compares homosexuality to a disease?

It's like the people who go "I'm not a racist, but," and you know they are about to say the most racist thing ever and prove themselves to indeed be racists.

Silly me, I thought it was to declare love for someone.

If it was about that, you wouldn't need a contract. You'd just declare that love by saying "I love you." So, yes, silly you.

So a coupled married before the justice of the peace isn't actually married now?

How about captains and other officals empowered to perform weddings?

Legally I think it should all be the same, but I still feel that there should be some differentiation between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one, even if it's only in name. If the only thing that homosexuals are concerned about is their rights in a relationship and their right to call their partner husband or wife then whether it's a marriage, civil union or whatever shouldn't be important.

Legally I think it should all be the same, but I still feel that there should be some differentiation between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one.

Why? Wanting them to be different is not wanting them to be the same, at all. Saying "there should be no difference" and then right after that saying "there should be a difference" is hypocrisy. Not to mention intellectual weakness.

If the only thing that homosexuals are concerned about is their rights in a relationship and their right to call their partner husband or wife then whether it's a marriage, civil union or whatever shouldn't be important.

But for some reason it's so important to you, that you're willing to make yourself a hypocrite over it. So, it gets to be important to you, but not to gay people?

Cancer is a disease that kills you. Homosexuality isn't a disease and doesn't kill you. Should I get you an apple and an orange so that you may compare those two, as well?

Both occur in nature, neither are as nature intended. That's as far as the analagy went. Read more into it if you want, but know that if you do so you'll be completely missing the point.

It's like the people who go "I'm not a racist, but," and you know they are about to say the most racist thing ever and prove themselves to indeed be racists.

Or perhaps go on to make a simple statement of fact that has no bearing on their opinion of the race/denomination/whatever, but is in fact entirely true, and simply don't wish to be branded by fanatical, over-sensitive member of said denomination. Not that I'm trying to say you're over-sensitive or fanatical. You missed my point and thought I was calling homosexuality a disease, I can see why you'd be annoyed with that.

...

I still feel that there should be some differentiation between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one, even if it's only in name.
It seems like you don't mean that at all--from your last post, and even this one, it looks like you mean that you wanted there to be a difference between religiously sanctioned marriages and purely state-sanctioned marriages.

i do not have a problem with gay people. they just should not be allowed to marry. not now. not ever. it disappoints me when i see so many people on this thread that support the idea. i know i am not going to get through to those of you that support it, so i am not about to take the time to explain my reasoning. doing so would likely not have any impact on you, and it would take me until friday to type it all out.

i WILL however, address the adoption topic that someone else brought up in this thread.

as far as the adoption thing goes. i am ok with homosexual couples adopting GIVEN that there are no heterosexual couples that are seen as fit to adopt children. say you have two couples. one is heterosexual, and one is homosexual. both are able to adopt, and are pretty much seen as equal in their ability to raise a child.

the heterosexual couple should get the child every single time.

i have seen people on this thread post about what is and is not "normal". here is the definition i pulled from merriamwebster.com

"according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle"

and to put it simply, a gay couple (especially regarding children) is not NORMAL. im not trying to be rude, but from my vantage point, that is just the way it is.

the "norm" for a family is having a mother and a father. how would it be for a child to introduce their gay parents to someone saying, "this is my dad, and this is my... other dad.

yeah, thats normal:rolleyes:

it is not just something that i prefer, its simply a matter of trying to maintain some normalcy.

if there are not any available heterosexual couples, then fine. i am not thrilled about, but willing to accept letting gay couples adopt. i am sure their love would not be any less nor would their ability to raise a child be inferior, but heterosexual couples can provide a more normal living environment. there are some things that only a mother can provide, and there are also times when the influence of a father is what a child needs. that is why i feel sympathy for single parents because their task is more difficult as well, but that is getting off topic.

this is something i feel pretty strongly about, and i NEVER see myself being ok with gay marriage or adoption. with that said, i do have some friends that are gay, and i do not hate gays at all. i hope that i have not been offensive throughout this post. that was not my intent.

i realize that many people that have opposing views will read this post and be anywhere between somewhat and extremely frustrated at the things i have said. some of you will respond quoting things i said and giving a rebuttal of some kind. i expect that, but i ask that you keep in mind that i made these remarks simply to get my point known and not to be rude or offensive in any way. i hope that anyone that responds to this post keeps that in mind when they try to get their point across. i have been ripped up and down a few times on message boards for making these posts, and it gets really old. why still do it? i want people to know how i feel. like it. hate it. think i couldnt be more wrong.

just try to keep the responses respectful and wait for your blood to stop boiling (if it is) before you start up your response. thank you.

well, typing this up took me into early tuesday. glad i didnt start with the marriage topic and type that all out. combine this view with the marriage topic, and i would have been here typing until next week.

I had a friend who was gay once, but he got better...

Both occur in nature, neither are as nature intended.

Newsflash - nature is not a person. It has no mind. It has no "intent."

That's as far as the analagy went. Read more into it if you want, but know that if you do so you'll be completely missing the point.

There is no point to it.

Or perhaps go on to make a simple statement of fact that has no bearing on their opinion of the race/denomination/whatever, but is in fact entirely true, and simply don't wish to be branded by fanatical, over-sensitive member of said denomination. Not that I'm trying to say you're over-sensitive or fanatical. You missed my point and thought I was calling homosexuality a disease, I can see why you'd be annoyed with that.

We all know just what you wanted - you wanted to think yourself open-minded and unhomophobic, but you also wanted to express a closed-minded and homophobic opinion. Just like you want gay marriages not to be different, but to be different.

Both occur in nature, neither are as nature intended. That's as far as the analagy went.
Freudian slip?

i do not have a problem with gay people. they just should not be allowed to marry. not now. not ever.

See, just like I wrote earlier. "I have no problem with gay people, but" and then follows something that indeed shows that this person has a problem with gay people. At least be bloody honest and admit it - don't think you're fooling anyone but yourself with that little disclaimer.

But for some reason it's so important to you, that you're willing to make yourself a hypocrite over it. So, it gets to be important to you, but not to gay people?

Yes, I'm shallow, I care about what it's called. I have no objection to gay rights whatsoever, they're entitled to all the ones that heterosexuals are in my opinion.

But...

So long as we're drawing distinctions between sexual-preference then why not with marriage? Liking members of the opposite sex is different to liking members of the same sex. So we've got different words to describe those orientations. Why not have different words to describe unions between people of different orientations? Or if you object to that, let's just be politically correct and scrub the words homosexual and heterosexual from the dictionary.

Let them get married and cry in a corner? It's not difficult to respect other peoples' preferences, unless you are insecure in your own sexuality. So much that you have to bully homosexuals to show you aren't one of them.

Well guess what? You are one of them. A human being. Doing natural things. I for one, see no problem with gay marriage.

See, if we just used the word "smurf" for everything, we wouldnt have this problem...

Yes, I'm shallow, I care about what it's called. I have no objection to gay rights whatsoever, they're entitled to all the ones that heterosexuals are in my opinion.

But...

Here it goes again...

So long as we're drawing distinctions between sexual-preference then why not with marriage? Liking members of the opposite sex is different to liking members of the same sex. So we've got different words to describe those orientations. Why not have different words to describe unions between people of different orientations? Or if you object to that, let's just be politically correct and scrub the words homosexual and heterosexual from the dictionary.

I'll quote the Massachusetts Supreme court:

"We have now been asked to render an advisory opinion on Senate No. 2175, which creates a new legal status, "civil union," that is purportedly equal to "marriage," yet separate from it. The constitutional difficulty of the proposed civil union bill is evident in its stated purpose to "preserv[e] the traditional, historic nature and meaning of the institution of civil marriage."

. . . Preserving the institution of civil marriage is of course a legislative priority of the highest order, and one to which the Justices accord the General Court the greatest deference. We recognize the efforts of the Senate to draft a bill in conformity with the Goodridge opinion. Yet the bill, as we read it, does nothing to "preserve" the civil marriage law, only its constitutional infirmity. This is not a matter of social policy but of constitutional interpretation. As the court concluded in Goodridge, the traditional, historic nature and meaning of civil marriage in Massachusetts is as a wholly secular and dynamic legal institution, the governmental aim of which is to encourage stable adult relationships for the good of the individual and of the community, especially its children. The very nature and purpose of civil marriage, the court concluded, renders unconstitutional any attempt to ban all same-sex couples . . . from entering into civil marriage.

The same defects of rationality evident in the marriage ban considered in Goodridge are evident in, if not exaggerated by, Senate No. 2175. . . . The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. . . .

The bill's absolute prohibition of the use of the word "marriage" by "spouses" who are the same sex is more than semantic. The dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. The denomination of this difference by the separate opinion of Justice Sosman (separate opinion) as merely a "squabble over the name to be used" so clearly misses the point that further discussion appears to be useless. . . .

We are well aware that current Federal law prohibits recognition by the Federal government of the validity of same-sex marriages legally entered into in any State, and that it permits other States to refuse to recognize the validity of such marriages. The argument in the separate opinion that, apart from the legal process, society will still accord a lesser status to those marriages is irrelevant. Courts define what is constitutionally permissible, and the Massachusetts Constitution does not permit this type of labeling.

That there may remain personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples is a proposition all too familiar to other disadvantaged groups. That such prejudice exists is not a reason to insist on less than the Constitution requires."

Too late its already happened. Well not 'marriage' but civil union in this country and I don't see Britain going down. Not everyone is turning gay. Equal People Equal Rights

the "norm" for a family is having a mother and a father. how would it be for a child to introduce their gay parents to someone saying, "this is my dad, and this is my... other dad.

yeah, thats normal:rolleyes:

it is not just something that i prefer, its simply a matter of trying to maintain some normalcy.
The "norm" for the children and young adults of my acquaintance is to have a mother, and a father & stepmother that they see once a week or once a fortnight. Sometimes there's a stepfather in the equation, too. I don't know why no one seems to be pushing for that over the one mother/one father split, in the areas where that's more likely than married parents. (And if you don't think we should legislate based on small areas' "norms", should we go by the whole world? It's probably not the norm for a kid to have his own bedroom, to have enough to eat whenever he's hungry, and to have a chance to go to college. Should we not allow that because he'd be out of the ordinary?)

Kids are pretty well able to adapt to things--which is lucky, since most childhoods are at least a little dysfunctional, whether or not their parents are gay or divorced.

See, if we just used the word "smurf" for everything, we wouldnt have this problem...

You, my friend, are one of the few bastions of sense in this thread. If you ever run for office you've got my vote.

Too late its already happened. Well not 'marriage' but civil union in this country and I don't see Britain going down. Not everyone is turning gay. Equal People Equal Rights

Except that it's not equal at all.

Yes, I'm shallow, I care about what it's called. I have no objection to gay rights whatsoever, they're entitled to all the ones that heterosexuals are in my opinion.
If all you care about is the name, why not give heterosexuals only the name of marriage, and none of the legal privileges?

Liking members of the opposite sex is different to liking members of the same sex. So we've got different words to describe those orientations. Why not have different words to describe unions between people of different orientations? Or if you object to that, let's just be politically correct and scrub the words homosexual and heterosexual from the dictionary.
We could as easily have sexual orientations based on whether we like men or women. Gynecophilia/androphilia? It makes just as much sense. It isn't actually significant that we have the words for the concepts of heterosexuality & homosexuality. It doesn't make it automatically different.

Currently you are known as the "warcrazy country of stupid fat people" in the rest of the world. I think "Gay country" would be an improvement.

You win the thread!

Yes, I'm shallow, I care about what it's called. I have no objection to gay rights whatsoever, they're entitled to all the ones that heterosexuals are in my opinion.

But...

So long as we're drawing distinctions between sexual-preference then why not with marriage? Liking members of the opposite sex is different to liking members of the same sex. So we've got different words to describe those orientations. Why not have different words to describe unions between people of different orientations? Or if you object to that, let's just be politically correct and scrub the words homosexual and heterosexual from the dictionary.

Well, in Islam is allowed to marry many (till four) women, and even not muslim people call it marriage. Noons are "married" with god, and God is hardly a man, or a woman. In clasical tibetian culture women are also allowed to have several husbands. So your reasoning is quite weak to support it. Is just a question of habitude. A bad reason to keep something untouched.

Legally I think it should all be the same, but I still feel that there should be some differentiation between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one, even if it's only in name. If the only thing that homosexuals are concerned about is their rights in a relationship and their right to call their partner husband or wife then whether it's a marriage, civil union or whatever shouldn't be important.
Ah, we're using the same twisted logic that gave us seperate but equal isn't inferior and that if negros feel that way it is due to their own opinion.

I see, I see.

What ever happened to "the paragraph"?
Anyway, civil unions are legal aren't they? If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal. Not that that's bad, I'm not "normal" in any sense of the word, but we'd be saying "gay is just as natural, as straight". And that is simply not true. I'll bet you guys will be saying to legalize animal-to-human marrige next.You are aware that being lefthanded isn't "normal" either, but still there are products created to allow lefties to live like "normal" righties?

i do not have a problem with gay people. they just should not be allowed to marry. not now. not ever. *Snip*
I was raised in a single parent household for most of my life (3 to 17).

I guess I am not normal then.

to pry your head out of your ass;

Ur right it doesnt effect my personal life but look at it this way,there are lots of kids to adopt and a lot of artificial encimination going on,if gay/lesbians get married they'll probably do one or the other,no real problem except that sooner or later everone will be gay(far in the future)no big deal,now lets say for some reason less people have babies,what will that do?make us extinct,go ahead and be gay,but we cant look at this as though we're not going to frown upon it because in reality you're choosing you sexual preferences over the human race*steps off stage*

Homosexuality isn't contagious! Lord knows there are days when I wish it were, I'd be queering hot straight guys left and right. Sadly, it isn't one of our powers. And hello! If gay people could only raise gay children, then it would stand to reason that straight people could only raise straight children. Gay people getting married and raising kids is not going to have *any* impact on the population's overall gay:straight ratio; the only things it might lead to are: healthier self-esteem and less suicide among gay people; a simple increase in the number of marriages (divorce rates yet to be determined); and finally, when there is no rain of blood and fire and no Nazis riding dinosaurs, there might be more widespread social acceptance of non-heterosexuality, leading to people in general feeling more free to be themselves and a net decrease in all the buggered up anxiety that most cultures around the world still experience around the topic of sex (and, by extension, gender). It might even be possible that undermining and ultimately overthrowing the last officially sanctioned form of bigotry in Western culture (as evidenced by the fact that gay people are the only minority still overtly targeted, by name, for discrimination by their own governments) could improve the world in general. Which would be a far cry from causing the 'extinction' of humanity. Though given how commonplace opinions like yours still are, some days I think extinction would almost be fitting for any species that can produce such retrograde thinking!

Holy hell, I get angrier by the day

I believe that gays and lesbian should get married and have the same benefits as hetrosexual couples.


i dont even have to read the rest that is a bad idea

i dont even have to read the rest that is a bad idea
Why? Why the hell does this frighten you so much that you think it is a bad idea?

, I believe that gays and lesbian should get married and have the same benefits as hetrosexual couples.

i dont have to read it all to know that is a bad idea

Why? Why the hell does this frighten you so much that you think it is a bad idea?
you never give gay people rights

you never give gay people rights
Oh yes, them damn gays get uppity if you give them rights. :rolleyes:

You actually have a reason here?

you never give gay people rights
You never give anyone rights. You can only let the rights stand or try to deprive people of them.

Oh yes, them damn gays get uppity if you give them rights. :rolleyes:

You actually have a reason here?
yeah if you give them rights you will treat them like normal people and they are anything but normal and the uppity thing that is true to

yeah if you give them rights you will treat them like normal people and they are anything but normal and the uppity thing that is true to

Please, please tell me that you're joking here. Please?

Please, please tell me that you're joking here. Please?
yeah about the uppity thing the rest i mean

yeah about the uppity thing the rest i mean

Dear God. Okay, well I've never had one of your lot explain this to me in person, so go ahead.

Why is it wrong to give homosexuals righta and treat them as 'normal'?

Dear God. Okay, well I've never had one of your lot explain this to me in person, so go ahead.

Why is it wrong to give homosexuals righta and treat them as 'normal'?
cause they are not normal

cause they are not normal

A) Define 'Normal' and how 'Normal' is not an ever-changing ideal

B) Why are homosexuals unnatural?

A) Define 'Normal' Define it ok straight

Define it ok straight

Ignoring for the moment that you have not answered the most important question, let us delve into your answer. You say that 'Straight', by which I presume you mean Heterosexual, is 'Normal.

Why is being heterosexual 'Normal', and homosexual 'Unnormal'?

Ignoring for the moment that you have not answered the most important question, let us delve into your answer. You say that 'Straight', by which I presume you mean Heterosexual, is 'Normal.

Why is being heterosexual 'Normal', and homosexual 'Unnormal'?
i would not say unnormal i would say abnormal as in abnormal meaning different and different meaning not straight

i would not say unnormal i would say abnormal as in abnormal meaning different and different meaning not straight

Again, why is it abnormal? What is wrong with not being a heterosexual?

Again, why is it abnormal? What is wrong with not being a heterosexual?
because god meant for us to all be heterosexual and then some faggot fucked it up but even if i wasn't religious i would still think the same way

At least one conservative has some sense. :D

A conservative, by definition, is against all new Constitutional Amendments.

If there isn't a visible victim then there is no crime!

I am a conservative too. It's sad when those that call themselves liberals don't know that they are really constitutional conservatives. It only proves how widespread ignorance has become.

because god meant for us to all be heterosexual and then some faggot fucked it up but even if i wasn't religious i would still think the same way

I see. So, you believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. Please, show me the verses where God states that he meant all humans to be Heterosexual, and states that Homosexuality is wrong.

I might also point out that, in non-religious terms, sixty years ago in the United States, segregation was seen as 'Normal' by society. Several hundred years ago, the fact that the Sun orbited around the Earth was also seen as 'Normal'. However, we now accept that black people are the same as us, and that the Earth orbits around the Sun. What is 'Normal' changes in society constantly; Gays are accepted as part of society by the majority of people. Thus, you cannot really use 'Homosexuality isn't normal' as an excuse.

I see. So, you believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. Please, show me the verses where God states that he meant all humans to be Heterosexual, and states that Homosexuality is wrong.

I might also point out that, in non-religious terms, sixty years ago in the United States, segregation was seen as 'Normal' by society. Several hundred years ago, the fact that the Sun orbited around the Earth was also seen as 'Normal'. However, we now accept that black people are the same as us, and that the Earth orbits around the Sun. What is 'Normal' changes in society constantly; Gays are accepted as part of society by the majority of people. Thus, you cannot really use 'Homosexuality isn't normal' as an excuse.
dude listen you cannot change my opinion about faggots


you should not hate the gay but i don't not hate them

i don't hate anything nobody should not hate anything at worst you should dislike their ways and that is it
i just dislike there way of life

I see. So, you believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. Please, show me the verses where God states that he meant all humans to be Heterosexual, and states that Homosexuality is wrong.

I might also point out that, in non-religious terms, sixty years ago in the United States, segregation was seen as 'Normal' by society. Several hundred years ago, the fact that the Sun orbited around the Earth was also seen as 'Normal'. However, we now accept that black people are the same as us, and that the Earth orbits around the Sun. What is 'Normal' changes in society constantly; Gays are accepted as part of society by the majority of people. Thus, you cannot really use 'Homosexuality isn't normal' as an excuse.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

I agree with the premsis of this thread and I am actully pleased that there has only been one idiot on here so far that disagrees with the idea. It is promising for the future that most people do in fact support the idea and that the best arguement that the other people can come up with is bullshit.
I don't think that labelling anyone who disagrees an "idiot" and their ideas "bullshit" is very helpful in creating an environment in which people can freely argue their ideas. Sometimes dissidents are kind of excluded from freedom of speech in our liberal, relativist society.

Today, I am about to shock my Conservative friends, yes I a Conservative myself, I do believe in smaller taxes, and smaller and limited government. I also like to have as much freedom as I can under the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Keeping within the spirit of my political ideals, I believe that gays and lesbian should get married and have the same benefits as hetrosexual couples. Why you might ask? Well, the Republican would like you to think that they are protecting the scanity of marriage, but we have a 50% divorce rate in this country, scanity of marriage went out the windows a looonnngggg time ago. I would also like to point to Hollywood, a place were people marry and divorce more often than I change underwear! If anyone ruining the scanity of marriage, it's those damn hollywood couples who only get married for the publicity. Let me ask yall this, would it really matter to you, personally, if Adam and John get married? I mean how does that interfear into your personal life, or into your life at all? I mean us straight people get to talk about our wives and husband, I say we should give our gay and lesbian counterpart the same opporunity. If the Republican really want to "protect" the sancity of marriage, they would allow gays and lesbian to get married, and enforce the idea that you marry someone because you love them, and that you can't see yourself being without that person. Marriage isn't about money, or security for life, it's about love. The Republican should try to enforce that when it comes with the scanity of marriage. Also, they should ban Hollywood couples from getting married and divorce so many damn often!
I happen to agree, but the Republican Party knows that the chance of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell. They're just playing to their religious-right-wing base.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

thank you

dude listen you cannot change my opinion about faggots


you should not hate the gay but i don't not hate them

i don't hate anything i should not hate anything at worst you should dislike their ways and that is it
i just dislike there way of life

But why do you dislike them? You use the Bible as your primary reason. Do you know, for example, that many of the verses used by those like yourself are actually mistranslated? That the primary one refers to man not lying with a woman on here period, instead of homosexuality. Or that Sodom and Gommorah were condemned for being rude to strangers and other activities, not for in fact being homosexual?

Homosexuals are no different to you and I, and 'Normality' has nothing to do with it; what is 'Normal' changes constantly, and always for the better. Their 'Way of Life' as you put it is no different to anyone elses apart from the gender of the sex they prefer. They still eat, and sleep, and vote. They worry about things, they care for people. They still bleed red when they are cut. There is nothing fundamentally 'Wrong' or 'Abnormal' about them.

Thus, the only excuse left for your dislike of homosexuals is the Bible, which I have already illustrated as being badly translated and not actually condemning homosexual activity; indeed, there has been at least one seemingly-homosexual relationship in the Bible. Thus, I fail to see the reasoning behind your dislike of homosexuals.

I agree with the premsis of this thread and I am actully pleased that there has only been one idiot on here so far that disagrees with the idea. It is promising for the future that most people do in fact support the idea and that the best arguement that the other people can come up with is bullshit.
does it make you any better than them by calling them idiots

i just dislike there way of life

The way someone lives is not not the by-product of sexual preference. Surprisingly, someone can live next door to you, eat the same food, enjoy the same films/music as you and live with a member of the same sex. The difference is that they can't marry that person.

Many people consider themselves as having a "type" of person they'll be attracted to, yet it's rare that a straight man will be judged for only dating brunettes with blue eyes. It's just considered to be his personal preference and doesn't call for pitchforks and angry mobs.

I can't see the logic in defining someone by their choice of partner any more than their shoe size.

You can believe in a certain pattern of beliefs regardless of who you're having sex with, as they're essentially mental crutches used for solace in some form or another. I don't see why someone should be unable to act in accordance with their faith because some people don't understand.

Also, the old "I love gay people, all my friends are gay, but" line is wearing a little thin 6 pages into the thread.

But why do you dislike them? You use the Bible as your primary reason. Do you know, for example, that many of the verses used by those like yourself are actually mistranslated? That the primary one refers to man not lying with a woman on here period, instead of homosexuality. Or that Sodom and Gommorah were condemned for being rude to strangers and other activities, not for in fact being homosexual?

Homosexuals are no different to you and I, and 'Normality' has nothing to do with it; what is 'Normal' changes constantly, and always for the better. Their 'Way of Life' as you put it is no different to anyone elses apart from the gender of the sex they prefer. They still eat, and sleep, and vote. They worry about things, they care for people. They still bleed red when they are cut. There is nothing fundamentally 'Wrong' or 'Abnormal' about them.

Thus, the only excuse left for your dislike of homosexuals is the Bible, which I have already illustrated as being badly translated and not actually condemning homosexual activity; indeed, there has been at least one seemingly-homosexual relationship in the Bible. Thus, I fail to see the reasoning behind your dislike of homosexuals.
listen no amount of logic you tell me can change my mind so why try

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Thanks a lot for those. Also, the creation story, Genesis 2:18-24:
18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." [...] 20But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said,

"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."[i]



24Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Basically, according to the Bible man is created for woman and woman for man; they complement each other. Marriage is, in this passage, created by God as a lifelong committed, exclusive relationship between one woman and one man (verse 24).

listen no amount of logic you tell me can change my mind so why try

So that would make your contribution illogical?

The way someone lives is not not the by-product of sexual preference. Surprisingly, someone can live next door to you, eat the same food, enjoy the same films/music as you and live with a member of the same sex. The difference is that they can't marry that person.

i am glad they cant marry

listen no amount of logic you tell me can change my mind so why try

Because you are not using logic; it pains me to see someone attack/villify another person and their way of life as 'Abnormal' just because an old, oft-translated book tells them to.

Homosexuals are no different to you, and yet you villify them for reasons that are beyond me.

So that would make your contribution illogical?
you can say what you want i don't care

i am glad they cant marry

How would it affect your life if my hypothetical couple did marry?

Because you are not using logic; it pains me to see someone attack/villify another person and their way of life as 'Abnormal' just because an old, oft-translated book tells them to.

Homosexuals are no different to you, and yet you villify them for reasons that are beyond me.
dont use the bible on me if it did not exist i would still think the same way the bible just made me a good enough person not to kill faggots

How would it affect your life if my hypothetical couple did marry?
hopfully it won't

Maybe because I'm quite free market minded, I do believe that marriage should be open for people that honestly love eachother. No exceptions.

Thus, the only excuse left for your dislike of homosexuals is the Bible, which I have already illustrated as being badly translated and not actually condemning homosexual activity; indeed, there has been at least one seemingly-homosexual relationship in the Bible. Thus, I fail to see the reasoning behind your dislike of homosexuals.

You actually think the bible isn't condeming homosexuality?
Wow, just wow.
That's more ignorant than the views against homosexuality.

dont use the bible on me if it did not exist i would still think the same way the bible just made me a good enough person not to kill faggots

This is what I mean. Homosexuals are no different to you. They are still human. The only difference is that they like their own gender instead of the opposite. They are not trying to convert you, they are not 'Abnormal', they are not hurting you in any way.

Yet you state that you hope they do not marry, that you dislike them, and you insinuate you might even want to try and kill them.


Why?

is anybody in this forum actually gay?

dont use the bible on me if it did not exist i would still think the same way the bible just made me a good enough person not to kill faggots
Whilst the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, it commands us to love all people. So we should love homosexuals whilst disagreeing with their way of life. By no means should we hate them. Calling them "faggots" is not particularly loving.

Whilst the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, it commands us to love all people. So we should love homosexuals whilst disagreeing with their way of life. By no means should we hate them. Calling them "faggots" is not particularly loving.
i hate no living creature

is anybody in this forum actually gay?

At least 50% or greater.

You actually think the bible isn't condeming homosexuality?
Wow, just wow.
That's more ignorant than the views against homosexuality.

Whilst I am not a Biblical Scholar, I have debated in enough of these threads to listen to the more expert posters, such as Grave_n_Idle. I have seen that the Bible has oft been mistranslated from its original version, and the verses you state are dubious at best.

I know, for example, that the first verse you illustrate has in fact to do with women on their periods, and men not to lie with them then, and not homosexuality.

I would've been interested to see if Vogonsphere had been able to pull out those quotes himself, as "because The Bible said so" is a common enough excuse that can rarely be backed with any examples.

If them marrying wouldn't affect you, then I can't understand what your problem with it would be.

Whilst the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, it commands us to love all people. So we should love homosexuals whilst disagreeing with their way of life. By no means should we hate them. Calling them "faggots" is not particularly loving.
and beside i am just calling them what they are if they are offended by me calling them faggots that is there problem

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Luckily, gay men don't tend to deal in PIV intercourse, so they're safe there. :)

(But I'm not putting much stock in that stuff. Even if it was literally the word of god, it's a translation of a translation, and includes the prejudices and the interpretations of the translators. The idea of "homosexuality" is pretty recent, for a start. I doubt there was a synonym in whatever language the Bible was written in originally.)

I don't think that labelling anyone who disagrees an "idiot" and their ideas "bullshit" is very helpful in creating an environment in which people can freely argue their ideas. Sometimes dissidents are kind of excluded from freedom of speech in our liberal, relativist society.
Dude, you're not "excluded from freedom of speech" just because someone says you're being an idiot or a jerk or a bigot. Especially if it's true. You're still free to say whatever you want to say--as has been shown plenty here.

i hate no living creature
It just sounded a bit like it. You may not hate homosexuals, but do you love them as your fellow humans?

At least 50% or greater.

How do you know this?

At least 50% or greater.And where'd you get that from?

At least 50% or greater.
It's not that high. There have been endless polls on the topic; if I remember correctly, about 10-20% describe themselves as gay.

I would've been interested to see if Vogonsphere had been able to pull out those quotes himself, as "because The Bible said so" is a common enough excuse that can rarely be backed with any examples.

If them marrying wouldn't affect you, then I can't understand what your problem with it would be.
i guess you can't understand that is your problem

But why do you dislike them? You use the Bible as your primary reason. Do you know, for example, that many of the verses used by those like yourself are actually mistranslated? That the primary one refers to man not lying with a woman on here period, instead of homosexuality. Or that Sodom and Gommorah were condemned for being rude to strangers and other activities, not for in fact being homosexual?

That doesn't even matter.

In the New testament Christ says what comes out of your mouth is more important than what goes in.

All those old laws, like no pork or shellfish, no sex with menstruating women, and no gay sex don't apply anymore.

Treating other how you would like to be treated is the most important thing.

and beside i am just calling them what they are if they are offended by me calling them faggots that is there problemAh, so you don't mind being called a bigot?

And where'd you get that from?

From most of the men constantly sharing their homosexual/bisexual experiences?

At least 50% or greater.

I thought it was more like 10%-30%

i guess you can't understand that is your problem

Then you can explain.

Ah, so you don't mind being called a bigot?

If he gets offended, that's his problem.

It just sounded a bit like it. You may not hate homosexuals, but do you love them as your fellow humans?
as my fellow humans yes

and i never hate i dislike there ways

Even if it was literally the word of god, it's a translation of a translation, and includes the prejudices and the interpretations of the translators. The idea of "homosexuality" is pretty recent, for a start. I doubt there was a synonym in whatever language the Bible was written in originally.)
The Bible is not the translation of a translation. All modern translations translate directly from classical Hebrew, which is the original. Sometimes slightly ambiguous or unclear passages are clarified using one of the very early Bible translations or versions, such as the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Vulgate.

From most of the men constantly sharing their homosexual/bisexual experiences?

...

Which forum are you thinking about? I've yet to see a thread on General about that. Or are you just making this up?

From most of the men constantly sharing their homosexual/bisexual experiences?Like?

Then you can explain.
no i can't

no i can't

So you dislike these 'Faggot's', but you cannot explain why?

Whilst the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, it commands us to love all people. So we should love homosexuals whilst disagreeing with their way of life. By no means should we hate them. Calling them "faggots" is not particularly loving.

Which is why most people discover that the bible has massive contradictions in its pages. (How can we both love everyone but torch homosexuals?).
Which is why I'm not religious.

Which is why most people discover that the bible has massive contradictions in its pages. (How can we both love everyone but torch homosexuals?).
Which is why I'm not religious.
Disagreeing with homosexuality is different from wanting to kill homosexuals.

...

Which forum are you thinking about? I've yet to see a thread on General about that. Or are you just making this up?

I guess you were never in any of the bisexual threads.

So you dislike these 'Faggot's', but you cannot explain why?
if me saying yes will get you to shut up then yes

I guess you were never in any of the bisexual threads.

Fascinating. Please, link me to these threads.

Disagreeing with homosexuality is different from wanting to kill homosexuals.
yes being religious is the only thing that stops me from killing them

if me saying yes will get you to shut up then yes

No, it won't. Because your dislike is irrational, and as a rational being I take offense at this.

yes being religious is the only thing that stops me from killing them

But if you weren't religious, you wouldn't want to kill them...

No, it won't. Because your dislike is irrational
you don't know the half of it

yes being religious is the only thing that stops me from killing them

You mean to say you would actually kill homosexuals if you were not religious? Why? They've never done anything to hurt you, and they're the same as you. Yet you would kill another human being.


Why?

No, it won't. Because your dislike is irrational, and as a rational being I take offense at this.

Morals aren't that simple.

But if you weren't religious, you wouldn't want to kill them...
who the hell told you that crap of course i would kill them

You mean to say you would actually kill homosexuals if you were not religious? Why? They've never done anything to hurt you, and they're the same as you. Yet you would kill another human being.


Why?
they are not the same as me i take that as an insult

they are not the same as me i take that as an insult

Well neither are black people.

they are not the same as me i take that as an insultWouldn't that be your problem, if you take offense at that?

they are not the same as me i take that as an insult

Women are not the same as you. Will you kill them as well? What about Jewish people? Or Muslims? What about Black people, or Mexicans? What about those with disabilities? They are all different to you.


So will you kill all of them because they are an insult to you?


.

they are not the same as me i take that as an insult

AHAHAHAHA. Gentlemen, it appears we have a troll.

if me saying yes will get you to shut up then yes

Why are you even bothering to post? You've already admitted your position is illogical and you can't explain it.

Currently you are known as the "warcrazy country of stupid fat people" in the rest of the world. I think "Gay country" would be an improvement.


Marvellous!

On this day in 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot dead.

Schlesinger wrote in his biography of RFK that this death was the death of any hope in a lasting campaign of social justice. "Part of all of us died that day" he wrote.

The truth in this case is quite simple - gay people getting civil unions or marriages has nothing to do with religion. Yet the religious-right is confusing the issue in a deliberate attempt to promote an agenda which is completely inane. I myself am a devout Roman Catholic. The great strength of Catholicism is that we were all taught as children by the RC school system and our parents that before we rush to judge anyone else we should take a good look in the mirror.

George Bush (who signed away the lives of 155 people whilst Governor of Texas, who has caused 100,000+ needless innocent lives to be cut short in Iraq, who continues to allow the enslavement of millions across the world through his foregin economic sanctions and interferences and trade piracy, who talks of freedom yet approves of the destruction of civil liberties in the US, who has the lowest popularity rating of any president in recent memory) has no right to talk about the sins of any other.

He is not a christian insofar as his current actions and beliefs stand.

Let gay people have civil unions. It's absurd that they are denied basic inheritance rights by society. in fact, it's disgusting...and Senator Ted Kennedy believes so too.

Best,

David.

Wouldn't that be your problem, if you take offense at that?
yep

Well neither are black people.
i dont dislike black ppl unless they were gay

Women are not the same as you. Will you kill them as well? What about Jewish people? Or Muslims? What about Black people, or Mexicans? What about those with disabilities? They are all different to you.


So will you kill all of them because they are an insult to you?



?

i dont dislike black ppl unless they were gay

But they are different to you. Surely, to be logical, that is also an insult?

Women are not the same as you. Will you kill them as well? What about Jewish people? Or Muslims? What about Black people, or Mexicans? What about those with disabilities? They are all different to you.


So will you kill all of them because they are an insult to you?


.none of them are insults and no matter what if they are gay i would never hurt a lady

The Bible is not the translation of a translation. All modern translations translate directly from classical Hebrew, which is the original. Sometimes slightly ambiguous or unclear passages are clarified using one of the very early Bible translations or versions, such as the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Vulgate.
I was under the impression that the Greek translation and the Hebrew one were both translations/versions of an older Hebrew text. But even if not, that still means that the parts that are "ambiguous" are translations of translations, and the rest is translated. I'm not sure if you've ever translated a novel, or worked with translators--do you know how difficult it is to translate accurately? Including things that one culture would obviously read but another culture wouldn't even notice, but that aren't actually in the text?

But they are different to you. Surely, to be logical, that is also an insult?
nope it isn't i am not a logical guy

AHAHAHAHA. Gentlemen, it appears we have a troll.
if i am a troll for my believes then sure

Why are you even bothering to post? You've already admitted your position is illogical and you can't explain it.
i like to keep people guessing

who the hell told you that crap of course i would kill them
Look, dude. You can like gay people without our thinking you're gay, too. Calm down.

Look, dude. You can like gay people without our thinking you're gay, too. Calm down.
everybody is gay to an exstint

I was under the impression that the Greek translation and the Hebrew one were both translations/versions of an older Hebrew text. But even if not, that still means that the parts that are "ambiguous" are translations of translations, and the rest is translated. I'm not sure if you've ever translated a novel, or worked with translators--do you know how difficult it is to translate accurately? Including things that one culture would obviously read but another culture wouldn't even notice, but that aren't actually in the text?
Well, I'm not a native English speaker, so yes, I've had some experience with translation both ways. I know it's difficult. Nonetheless, modern Bible versions almost always have plenty of footnotes illuminating meaning or literal translation etc.
I've never heard of the Koine Greek and Hebrew versions being translations/versions. But as for the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Masoretes considered every word of the Tanakh so sacred that when they introduced vowel points, these were above, inside or below the letters themselves; they were not allowed to interfere with the text. So I guess they considered their Scripture far too holy to mess with.

everybody is gay to an exstint

Looks like we're on the verge of a breakthrough here.

?
if they where gay i was not religious and they were not women

if i am a troll for my believes then sure

i like to keep people guessing

nope it isn't i am not a logical guy

You're simply posting to annoy people and keep them guessing and you have no logical basis for your arguments. = troll.

Looks like we're on the verge of a breakthrough here.
no i said to an exstint but not everybody has sex with the same sex

You're simply posting to annoy people and keep them guessing and you have no logical basis for your arguments. = troll.
alright sure then i dont care

What the fuck do you call yourselves???

CONSERVATIVES?!?!?!???

I am a really conservative and I hate same sex marriage, what about our tradition!?!

I never even dreamed of hearing same sex marriage by an american conservative!

What the fuck do you call yourselves???

CONSERVATIVES?!?!?!???

I am a really conservative and I hate same sex marriage, what about our tradition!?!

I never even dreamed of hearing same sex marriage by an american conservative!
:rolleyes:

When one troll falls, another emerges to take his place...

What the fuck do you call yourselves???

CONSERVATIVES?!?!?!???

I am a really conservative and I hate same sex marriage, what about our tradition!?!

I never even dreamed of hearing same sex marriage by an american conservative!
here here

Ok, if you're an USA-ian gay and want to marry, just come in Canada and yea, it's done. Problem? :cool:

:rolleyes:

When one troll falls, another emerges to take his place...
so what am i the original troll?

so what am i the original troll?
No, you're quite an unoriginal troll, actually.

Ok, if you're an USA-ian gay and want to marry, just come in Canada and yea, it's done. Problem? :cool:
then it is settled all fags go to canada and leave us alone

No, you're quite an unoriginal troll, actually.
ok then all this troll talk is getting confusing

then it is settled all fags go to canada and leave us alone
Better yet, why don't you move to the middle of the ocean and leave the rest in peace?

then it is settled all fags go to canada and leave us alone

Yes, because by existing they're harassing you.

Better yet, why don't you move to the middle of the ocean and leave the rest in peace?
i can't swim

Yes, because by existing they're harassing you.
sure

*sighs*

As a gay Christian, I can only say one thing. Much of the bible, which has been mistranslated, is complete BS. I hate saying it, but the bible cannot be the sole authority of my life when it has obviously been infected by the biases of its publishers. One particular version was even translated FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF INCREASING ITS SALES. So while I believe in God, I believe that much of what he wants for us is tossed to the side for arbitrary rules and regulations that do nothing but cause us pain.

i can't swim
Sucks to be you then, don't it?

But I'm sure we can find some nice island where you can be by yourself and you won't have to come into contact with icky gays.

*sighs*

As a gay Christian, I can only say one thing. Much of the bible, which has been mistranslated, is complete BS. I hate saying it, but the bible cannot be the sole authority of my life when it has obviously been infected by the biases of its publishers.how can you be gay christian your basicly mocking the bible and two "but the bible cannot be the sole authority of my life" yes i can

Sucks to be you then, don't it?

But I'm sure we can find some nice island where you can be by yourself and you won't have to come into contact with icky gays.you find it i'll live in it

you find it i'll live in it
Iwo Jima currently only has a very small SDF (2 people) on it. Have fun.

Iwo Jima currently only has a very small SDF (2 people) on it. Have fun.
i'll get a laptop so i can be a troll

You're trolling life, son.

Iwo Jima currently only has a very small SDF (2 people) on it. Have fun.

What did those two people ever do to you? :( :p

yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :headbang: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :headbang: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:
just wait till you get to two:eek:

What did those two people ever do to you? :( :p
Engrish, lots and lots of Engrish.

Ur right it doesnt effect my personal life but look at it this way,there are lots of kids to adopt and a lot of artificial encimination going on,if gay/lesbians get married they'll probably do one or the other,no real problem except that sooner or later everone will be gay(far in the future)no big deal,now lets say for some reason less people have babies,what will that do?make us extinct,go ahead and be gay,but we cant look at this as though we're not going to frown upon it because in reality you're choosing you sexual preferences over the human race*steps off stage*
I'm sorry, but do you have any grasp of a little thing called reality?

i win

how can you be gay christian your basicly mocking the bible and two "but the bible cannot be the sole authority of my life" yes i can
No, you completely misunderstand. Being born as I was does NOT stop me from believing in God and Jesus Christ and his teachings. I would never mock the Bible. I'm merely acknowledging the fact that it is an imperfect work written by imperfect people and that everything written in it should be taken with a grain of salt. And I refuse to let a single source dominate my life when there are so many other points of view to take into consideration.

No, you completely misunderstand. Being born as I was does NOT stop me from believing in God and Jesus Christ and his teachings. I would never mock the Bible. I'm merely acknowledging the fact that it is an imperfect work written by imperfect people and that everything written in it should be taken with a grain of salt. And I refuse to let a single source dominate my life when there are so many other points of view to take into consideration.
whatever live your life

whatever live your life
Yes, it's my life. My life which is not affecting you in any negative manner. So why don't you leave me, and people like me alone and allow us to do what makes us happy (see: establish long-lasting civil bonds recognized by the government and the full benifits entailing them)

Everyone should just shed their animosity and suck a cock without guilt. The world would be a much better place.

Everyone should just shed their animosity and suck a cock without guilt. The world would be a much better place.
Sometimes it's musty, though. It sucks when they don't properly clean.

Yes, it's my life. My life which is not affecting you in any negative manner. So why don't you leave me, and people like me alone and allow us to do what makes us happy (see: establish long-lasting civil bonds recognized by the government and the full benifits entailing them) you live your life but people like you that is a different story

Sometimes it's musty, though. It sucks when they don't properly clean.
that puts a bad images in my head

Sometimes it's musty, though. It sucks when they don't properly clean.

Same goes with the vagoo...

you live your life but people like you that is a different story
I'm glad that you see yourself as my superior, though you clearly aren't. I'm sorry that the world does not conform to your standards, but it never will. Homosexuality is something that can never go away. The only thing that can happen is that it can be frightened into obscurity, which is not a healthy thing for society.

Amazing, everyday there is another thread on this tiresome topic. And everyday there are the same people proporting that government sanctioned marriage should be allowed for gays because marriage is about "love". Yet, it seems few if any of you understand that government sanctioned status of marriage has nothing to do with love. It is all about economics, thus the point of tax law regarding marriage, estate law (which can me managed with a good will regardless of sexual orientation).

So the majority of people here that support gay marriage simply support it because of the emotion involved. Please, if we passed laws to appease everyones emotions where would we be??

Sorry, never will I support gay marriage and it has absolutely nothing to do with my favoring either orientation. It has to do with the math and the purpose behind government sanctioned marriage.

Do your homework people and stop arguing from your pants, you want to sit and slur either side of this issue because you think it all boils down to distaste for the act. It is much more complicated than who is screwing what and whether it is "normal". And yes that same emotion affects both sides of the debate, but either side using emotions in this doesn't get it at all.

Frankly, universal sufferage is bullshit, get an education.

So the majority of people here that support gay marriage simply support it because of the emotion involved. Please, if we passed laws to appease everyones emotions where would we be??

Maybe you can answer that question.

Sorry, never will I support gay marriage and it has absolutely nothing to do with my favoring either orientation. It has to do with the math and the purpose behind government sanctioned marriage.

So, how does banning gays from getting married benefit YOU personally economically?

It is much more complicated than who is screwing what and whether it is "normal".

No, it isnt. It all boils down to personal hatred for 2 guys who kiss. People like you just grab reasons out of the air to justify it.

Frankly, universal sufferage is bullshit, get an education.

What a way to argue...

Amazing, everyday there is another thread on this tiresome topic. And everyday there are the same people proporting that government sanctioned marriage should be allowed for gays because marriage is about "love". Yet, it seems few if any of you understand that government sanctioned status of marriage has nothing to do with love. It is all about economics, thus the point of tax law regarding marriage, estate law (which can me managed with a good will regardless of sexual orientation).

So the majority of people here that support gay marriage simply support it because of the emotion involved. Please, if we passed laws to appease everyones emotions where would we be??

Sorry, never will I support gay marriage and it has absolutely nothing to do with my favoring either orientation. It has to do with the math and the purpose behind government sanctioned marriage.

Do your homework people and stop arguing from your pants, you want to sit and slur either side of this issue because you think it all boils down to distaste for the act. It is much more complicated than who is screwing what and whether it is "normal". And yes that same emotion affects both sides of the debate, but either side using emotions in this doesn't get it at all.

Frankly, universal sufferage is bullshit, get an education.
…Trying not to point out irony of all the misspellings while making a call for others to get an education …

anybody else here gay besides that one guy

anybody else here gay besides that one guy

You havent been here long have you?

I'm glad that you see yourself as my superior, though you clearly aren't. I'm sorry that the world does not conform to your standards, but it never will. Homosexuality is something that can never go away. The only thing that can happen is that it can be frightened into obscurity, which is not a healthy thing for society.it could possibly go away you do not know that and i am not you superior

It has to do with the math and the purpose behind government sanctioned marriage.
Explain this. How does the math work against the idea of gay marriage?

You havent been here long have you?
you think i care don't you

Explain this. How does the math work against the idea of gay marriage?
shut up and listen to the man

you think i care don't you

And the reason for the temper tantrum is...?

And the reason for the temper tantrum is...?
cause i want to have one

it could possibly go away you do not know that and i am not you superior

No, it wont go away. And heterosexuality wont go away either so stop complaining. The sun will burn out before we all become gay.

shut up and listen to the man
He already said his piece … now it is time for us to question what he said… you new to a forum?

The sun will burn out before we all become gay.
and thank god for that

Gays cannot get married! It's not right!

and thank god for that

Uh...yeah...whatever.

He already said his piece … now it is time for us to question what he said… you new to a forum?
what does that have to do with anything and no i am not

Gays cannot get married! It's not right!
exactly

what does that have to do with anything and no i am not

He is providing no evidence that banning gay marriage will somehow financially benefit him personally.

Gayness is just wrong!

Gays cannot get married! It's not right!

Brilliant argument there...

Maybe you can answer that question.



So, how does banning gays from getting married benefit YOU personally economically?



No, it isnt. It all boils down to personal hatred for 2 guys who kiss. People like you just grab reasons out of the air to justify it.


What a way to argue...

Thank you for proving my point. Since this is obviously the only thing you can comprehend the economics lesson would be completely lost on you.

If you should desire to become educated in something besides emotional fodder, start with economic unit and why and government has tax laws encompassing the marital status.

You bet it affects me economically. The government does not hand out tax benefits (though surely you realize it is a marriage "penalty" in the immediate) without knowing full well the benefit to the state (meaning governing body) in the long run. There is no benefit to be gained by allowing gay marriage and applying the laws that govern heterosexual marriage to the same institution.

I haven't seen one poster on these boards in two months that even knows why government sanctions marriage.

what does that have to do with anything and no i am not
Your rather noobish request of “let the man speak” almost shouted “I don’t know forum etiquette”

Amazing, everyday there is another thread on this tiresome topic. And everyday there are the same people proporting that government sanctioned marriage should be allowed for gays because marriage is about "love". Yet, it seems few if any of you understand that government sanctioned status of marriage has nothing to do with love. It is all about economics, thus the point of tax law regarding marriage, estate law (which can me managed with a good will regardless of sexual orientation).

So the majority of people here that support gay marriage simply support it because of the emotion involved. Please, if we passed laws to appease everyones emotions where would we be??

Sorry, never will I support gay marriage and it has absolutely nothing to do with my favoring either orientation. It has to do with the math and the purpose behind government sanctioned marriage.

Do your homework people and stop arguing from your pants, you want to sit and slur either side of this issue because you think it all boils down to distaste for the act. It is much more complicated than who is screwing what and whether it is "normal". And yes that same emotion affects both sides of the debate, but either side using emotions in this doesn't get it at all.

Frankly, universal sufferage is bullshit, get an education.
Well, then the government needs to stop pussy-footing around the issue. As far as I'm concerned, they're doing it to protect the sanctity of marriage. If the purpose of civil unions is purely from an economical standpoint, there won't be enough gay marriages to make a large impact. It doesn't change the fact that people who are oriented towards their same gender will suffer.

1. Let gay people get married. Yeah, they'll realize their mistake pretty soon.

2. (Emily Latella's answer). What's wrong with gay marriage?! I think marriage should be a happy, joyous state where two people can enjoy life and love each other!! What's that? Oh, never mind!

3. Gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage? What does Bush think? We'll all be so tempted if we have the opportunity to marry someone of our own gender that no one will want to marry the opposite sex any more? Again, George, try to grow a brain.

Thank you for proving my point. Since this is obviously the only thing you can comprehend the economics lesson would be completely lost on you.

If you should desire to become educated in something besides emotional fodder, start with economic unit and why and government has tax laws encompassing the marital status.

You bet it affects me economically. The government does not hand out tax benefits (though surely you realize it is a marriage "penalty" in the immediate) without knowing full well the benefit to the state (meaning governing body) in the long run. There is no benefit to be gained by allowing gay marriage and applying the laws that govern heterosexual marriage to the same institution.

I haven't seen one poster on these boards in two months that even knows why government sanctions marriage.

Translation: Oh shit I dont have an argument.

…Trying not to point out irony of all the misspellings while making a call for others to get an education …

Typos are not spelling issues, typing is a motor skill and has absolutely nothing to do with education.

Your rather noobish request of “let the man speak” almost shouted “I don’t know forum etiquette”
i just say what i feel and dont care if i hurt anybody's feelings

Thank you for proving my point. Since this is obviously the only thing you can comprehend the economics lesson would be completely lost on you.

If you should desire to become educated in something besides emotional fodder, start with economic unit and why and government has tax laws encompassing the marital status.

You bet it affects me economically. The government does not hand out tax benefits (though surely you realize it is a marriage "penalty" in the immediate) without knowing full well the benefit to the state (meaning governing body) in the long run. There is no benefit to be gained by allowing gay marriage and applying the laws that govern heterosexual marriage to the same institution.

I haven't seen one poster on these boards in two months that even knows why government sanctions marriage.

I personally have never seen you show that you do either … you just make claims that you do.

That and it is rather naive to think that this all is just about tax breaks … hell from most of my friends that want to get married it is more about the other rights that are such a pain in the ass to do separately (hospital visitation rights, next of kin status, and the like)

Translation: Oh shit I dont have an argument.

No actually all you are saying is you don't understand. Which I already knew.

Gayness is just wrong!

It would seem the summer crop of fundies and trolls has arrived. A little late than the forecasts, but they're here nonetheless. Popcorn for all!

No actually all you are saying is you don't understand. Which I already knew.

I dont understand because all your doing is saying "You dont understand" instead of providing a fucking argument on how gay marriage somehow takes money out of your god damn pocket! Stop with the personal attacks and prove your point.

Translation: Oh shit I dont have an argument.

Or he just doesn't realise how much free spending money a successful gay couple would have, sine they aren't bogged down by a lot of family-building and maintaining purchases. Adoption would be another matter, but I'm pretty sure that gay couples are a dream come true for the entertainment, clothing and home improvement industries.

No actually all you are saying is you don't understand. Which I already knew.
Then let’s go through an economic forecast together … I got a minor in forecast and survey statistics I should at least be able to reflect on all the information and the meaning of the provable economic impact of allowing gay marriage.

Or he just doesn't realise how much free spending money a successful gay couple would have, sine they aren't bogged down by a lot of family-building and maintaining purchases. Adoption would be another matter, but I'm pretty sure that gay couples are a dream come true for the entertainment, clothing and home improvement industries.
Because it's so very different than a child-less marriage between a man and a woman.

Not all gays are flamboyant and care about trivial things such as fashion or home decor.

Not all gays are flamboyant and care about trivial things such as fashion or home decor.

No, but many are, and would pour money into that industry. Then again, so would alot of women.

Amazing, everyday there is another thread on this tiresome topic. And everyday there are the same people proporting that government sanctioned marriage should be allowed for gays because marriage is about "love". Yet, it seems few if any of you understand that government sanctioned status of marriage has nothing to do with love. It is all about economics, thus the point of tax law regarding marriage, estate law (which can me managed with a good will regardless of sexual orientation).

So the majority of people here that support gay marriage simply support it because of the emotion involved. Please, if we passed laws to appease everyones emotions where would we be??

Sorry, never will I support gay marriage and it has absolutely nothing to do with my favoring either orientation. It has to do with the math and the purpose behind government sanctioned marriage.

Do your homework people and stop arguing from your pants, you want to sit and slur either side of this issue because you think it all boils down to distaste for the act. It is much more complicated than who is screwing what and whether it is "normal". And yes that same emotion affects both sides of the debate, but either side using emotions in this doesn't get it at all.

Frankly, universal sufferage is bullshit, get an education.

I'm sorry, but your argument is completely void. Coming up with a counter-argument was difficult due to the stupidity of your entire post.
To actually think that the government and those against gay marriage, are against it due to the 'math' and 'economics' of it, is a farce. This is all about 'who is screwing what and whether it is 'normal'' as you put it. The Republican right wing, and it's religious military sect, are using this issue for support, discriminating against people who deserve their rights. Their basis on this issue is that God( IT was actually a book that hinted against homosexuality, not God himself...these types confuse the two) hate homosexuality, and since God hates it, we must hate it. Then here you come along with your 'math' and 'economics' with no proof to back up this claim. The only thing you were correct about, is that there are is virtually no tax law concerning gay marriage in most of the states...mainly because aside from your so-called no biased on sexual orientation, everyone else who is also an idiot, hates gay marriage only because of an invisible man. An invisible man that apparently told these people not to give them rights.

In fact, this is the first time I've heard this nonsense coming from anyone...and even Bill O'Reilly has covered this issue.

I personally have never seen you show that you do either … you just make claims that you do.

That and it is rather naive to think that this all is just about tax breaks … hell from most of my friends that want to get married it is more about the other rights that are such a pain in the ass to do separately (hospital visitation rights, next of kin status, and the like)

Which having nothing to do with the government recognizing marriage as a legal status. A medical poa now takes care of hospital issues, hell my husband and I had to have one for him to make my decisions and we are married. Next of kin status is an estate issue and a good lawyer can write a will that protects whatever needs protecting, California even recognized a "partnership" status for estate purposes.

Insurance companies are screwing same sex partners, I give you that by not allowing family status. But government does not determine that status, the insurance companies do and frankly they are screwing everyone but yes same sex couples and couples not legally married are shafted by them. Still nothing to do with marital law and why the state recognizes marital status, it is just used as a guildline by insurance companies.

As far as my doing a course of governmental economics for the forum boards, please do you get all your education from boards?? Look it up, take the courses necessary for you to understand why and what the issue is really about. Or don't, just know that emotion has little to do with it. Those supporting it who point to religion or bigotry as the only possible reasons to not support it obviously don't understand the issue.

In fact, this is the first time I've heard this nonsense coming from anyone...and even Bill O'Reilly has covered this issue.

Man, even I felt that one.

As far as my doing a course of governmental economics for the forum boards, please do you get all your education from boards?? Look it up, take the courses necessary for you to understand why and what the issue is really about. Or don't, just know that emotion has little to do with it. Those supporting it who point to religion or bigotry as the only possible reasons to not support it obviously don't understand the issue.

Oh man this is too funny.

Darwinian: "Im against gay marriage because I hate ga...I mean do the math!
Everyone else: "Uh, please show us how gay marriage hinders the economy."
Darwinian: "No! Take a class you retard!"

hilarity ensues!

Currently you are known as the "warcrazy country of stupid fat people" in the rest of the world. I think "Gay country" would be an improvement.agreed
*nods head*:)

Which having nothing to do with the government recognizing marriage as a legal status. A medical poa now takes care of hospital issues, hell my husband and I had to have one for him to make my decisions and we are married. Next of kin status is an estate issue and a good lawyer can write a will that protects whatever needs protecting, California even recognized a "partnership" status for estate purposes.

Insurance companies are screwing same sex partners, I give you that by not allowing family status. But government does not determine that status, the insurance companies do and frankly they are screwing everyone but yes same sex couples and couples not legally married are shafted by them. Still nothing to do with marital law and why the state recognizes marital status, it is just used as a guildline by insurance companies.

As far as my doing a course of governmental economics for the forum boards, please do you get all your education from boards?? Look it up, take the courses necessary for you to understand why and what the issue is really about. Or don't, just know that emotion has little to do with it. Those supporting it who point to religion or bigotry as the only possible reasons to not support it obviously don't understand the issue.


Like I said I may not have the pure social training but I have my associates in statistical forecasting … I can at least understand the data if you actually provided any.

Oh man this is too funny.

Darwinian: "Im against gay marriage because I hate ga...I mean do the math!
Everyone else: "Uh, please show us how gay marriage hinders the economy."
Darwinian: "No! Take a class you retard!"

hilarity ensues!
No kidding I have all the faculties to analyze any data provided, just waiting for some data.

You bet it affects me economically. The government does not hand out tax benefits (though surely you realize it is a marriage "penalty" in the immediate) without knowing full well the benefit to the state (meaning governing body) in the long run. There is no benefit to be gained by allowing gay marriage and applying the laws that govern heterosexual marriage to the same institution.
Sorry, what? That fails to address how it affects you economically. Considering how small the percentage of same-sex couples is, there wouldn't be a huge increase in marriage, after the immediate run of all of the already established partners. It's perverse to stop a group from doing something that hurts no one just because you percieve there to be "no benefit".

And past that, the tax benefits aren't the only state-given benefits to marriage.

No, but many are, and would pour money into that industry. Then again, so would alot of women.

Correct. And while women may buy such things anyway, they usually have to buy sneakers and backpacks for the kids first.

I'm sorry, but your argument is completely void. Coming up with a counter-argument was difficult due to the stupidity of your entire post.
To actually think that the government and those against gay marriage, are against it due to the 'math' and 'economics' of it, is a farce. This is all about 'who is screwing what and whether it is 'normal'' as you put it. The Republican right wing, and it's religious military sect, are using this issue for support, discriminating against people who deserve their rights. Their basis on this issue is that God( IT was actually a book that hinted against homosexuality, not God himself...these types confuse the two) hate homosexuality, and since God hates it, we must hate it. Then here you come along with your 'math' and 'economics' with no proof to back up this claim. The only thing you were correct about, is that there are is virtually no tax law concerning gay marriage in most of the states...mainly because aside from your so-called no biased on sexual orientation, everyone else who is also an idiot, hates gay marriage only because of an invisible man. An invisible man that apparently told these people not to give them rights.

In fact, this is the first time I've heard this nonsense coming from anyone...and even Bill O'Reilly has covered this issue.

Exactly what I was saying. Those supporting it will ONLY consider that is must be the reasons you give. The farce is yours because you would have people believe this is the only possible reason for not wanting it legalized. I certainly do not hear any debate on why it would be a sound economic decision to allow gay marriage. Shopping takes place whether marriage does or not, so that one is irrelevant. Give me a reason for the tax laws to encompass gay marriage, a reason that would make it advantageous to the government. That is the point, the government does not hand down tax law because it can, there has to be a reason, a valid economically sound one.

When same sex marriage supporters can do that, the chances of it becoming legal will rise greatly. Until then you can blame it all on religion etc, but the fact is it is all about money.

Correct. And while women may buy such things anyway, they usually have to buy sneakers and backpacks for the kids first.

Right, but for the couples who dont have kids that money spent on the backpacks and sneakers would go elsewhere.

I certainly do not hear any debate on why it would be a sound economic decision to allow gay marriage.

AND I AM FAILING TO SEE A DEBATE ON HOW ITS A SOUND ECONOMIC DECISION TO BAN THEM.

Exactly what I was saying. Those supporting it will ONLY consider that is must be the reasons you give. The farce is yours because you would have people believe this is the only possible reason for not wanting it legalized. I certainly do not hear any debate on why it would be a sound economic decision to allow gay marriage. Shopping takes place whether marriage does or not, so that one is irrelevant. Give me a reason for the tax laws to encompass gay marriage, a reason that would make it advantageous to the government. That is the point, the government does not hand down tax law because it can, there has to be a reason, a valid economically sound one.

When same sex marriage supporters can do that, the chances of it becoming legal will rise greatly. Until then you can blame it all on religion etc, but the fact is it is all about money.
Then show us said economic impact … come-on we are all waiting. Or are you just going to avoid actually providing any actual data?

Exactly what I was saying. Those supporting it will ONLY consider that is must be the reasons you give. The farce is yours because you would have people believe this is the only possible reason for not wanting it legalized. I certainly do not hear any debate on why it would be a sound economic decision to allow gay marriage. Shopping takes place whether marriage does or not, so that one is irrelevant. Give me a reason for the tax laws to encompass gay marriage, a reason that would make it advantageous to the government. That is the point, the government does not hand down tax law because it can, there has to be a reason, a valid economically sound one.

When same sex marriage supporters can do that, the chances of it becoming legal will rise greatly. Until then you can blame it all on religion etc, but the fact is it is all about money.
You still haven't offered any data. I'm majoring in Economics, so I'd be able to understand as well. From what it seems, the ONLY reason you have that gays shouldn't marry is because it's not benificial economically (which you haven't shown any data to support). If it's not benificial, then perhaps the rules need to be rewritten.