NationStates Jolt Archive

those last 2 sentences. that's called a theocracy. and self-respecting government which gives equal rights to its citizens should give no bearing to what your imaginary friend tells you to believe.

What is most ammusing is most of these Evangelicals arguing for a dominionistic view where the government is intertwined into the enforcement of particular religious discipline in this stage of the game, are descendants of some of the same people who opposed this particular despotism after being persecuted at the hands of dominionistic religiously enveloped governments...

IOW, their religous ancestors recognized that dominionism does not work... And quelled it... And they want to reach back into history and revive this defunct ideology.

Effectively the whole lot are fighting to sign their own death warrants.

THIS IS MY 27TH AND FINAL REPLY

ok, one question. why would i go into this forum? i'm fine in my little heterosexual life without bothering with you guys. what's the point in arguing if there is no possible way to "convert" the others? my only hope is that i left some of you with questions.
No ... your kind have been around here sense the begining ... nothing you have said is new nor thought pervoking.

Just realize you have a fight on your hands ... this may be an abstract concept of sin for you and trigger your right and wrong complex. but to us this is our lives

This can decide our personal entire lives past this point

If you dont think we are going to fight with every ounce of strength we have you are mistaken

Better idea,require all homosexuals to get married for the next year and a half. When homosexuals discover what they've gotten into, they'll never mention it again. There will be one less thing getting in the way of the US government discussinf or(gasp) acting on, thoings that are actually urgent.

Better idea,require all homosexuals to get married for the next year and a half. When homosexuals discover what they've gotten into, they'll never mention it again. There will be one less thing getting in the way of the US government discussinf or(gasp) acting on, thoings that are actually urgent.
But wouldn't that only force people into relationships that they don't want? After all, I'm not fighting to get married this instance. I'm fighting for my right to get married anytime I meet that special someone whose life I wish to share.

But wouldn't that only force people into relationships that they don't want? After all, I'm not fighting to get married this instance. I'm fighting for my right to get married anytime I meet that special someone whose life I wish to share.
It was a joke. Sorry,I guess I should've included this :).

It was a joke. Sorry,I guess I should've included this :).
I know, I'm just rather braindead at the moment. I've been at this all day @_@.

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

Here, here!


please refer to post #465 and be in awe of the freaking-knowledgeful-spiel

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

Here, here!


please refer to post #465 and be in awe of the freaking-knowledgeful-spiel



sorry for doubl posting: it is on page 31, i think... around there

Come on, homosexualism is not normal. It is normal to gay people, but it's not normal at all. Look at any camp gay man. It's like a woman in a man's body. Do you call that normal?

Anyway I have just posted some opinions of mine, I didn't judge anyone. IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT YOU'RE GAY. IN FACT BE GAY. More pussy for us, normal males of homo sapiens.

:upyours:

These heterosexual sexual deviants aren't normal. They must be punished! :sniper:

Alright I'll give them 1 chance, convert now or die!!!!! My religion, the only true religion, demands it!

Come on, homosexualism is not normal. It is normal to gay people, but it's not normal at all. Look at any camp gay man. It's like a woman in a man's body. Do you call that normal?

Anyway I have just posted some opinions of mine, I didn't judge anyone. IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT YOU'RE GAY. IN FACT BE GAY. More pussy for us, normal males of homo sapiens.

:upyours:

So you spend your life unwashed in front of a tvset watching sports with a can of beer and a carton of milk, with your favourite pitbull at your feet ?

After all, that is what REAL men do.

For crying OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People, jeez, focus! I know that gay people are around since the beginning of human race. I know gay animals are around, too. I don't mind and to be frank, I don't care either. In western culture gay people are everywhere and it's "okay", "normal" or "right".
No, it's not.
Biologically male should have male instincts, have sex with females, procreate. We do not choose whether we want to be straight or gay, we are what we are and should not be ostricized for it. But bear in mind, once you are born as a male and your mentality is not exactly male (( i.e you're camp gay person ) - don't even think that is normal. You're a fucking freak of nature. You should eat pussy, not suck cock. Not your fault, though.

So please, go hail gay men.

Dear ladies: if a straight guy is pissing you off with his sexist behaviour you can tell him off in 90% of cases. Dear men: if a gay guy is nagging you in 90% of cases he doesn't stop, unless you get violent. True?

I am sure many of you think that homosexualism is enviromental. A boy raised by two gay men will take interest in the same sex in most cases. face it.

Gay marriages? pfffffffffffffffff..........

Wake the fuck up before this world deteriorates. You have a right to think differently. You have a right to express yourself. You have a right to fuck whoever you want unless they are not adult yet. You have a right to live and you will definitely die. BEING GAY IS NORMAL ONLY BECAUSE YOU GET TO SEE GAY PEOPLE EVERYWHERE. IT'S AS NORMAL AS FUCKING ANIMALS, WHEN WE GET TO SEE IT EVERYWHERE. IT'S AS NORMAL AS EATING SHIT FOR LUNCH< WHEN WE GET TO SEE IT EVERYWHERE.

Please.... What happens around is normal when defined as such by the society.

Nature intented differently.

Kind regards,

Cockstein

Biologically male should have male instincts, have sex with females, procreate.

The biological imperative is to promote your own genes. Your close family also has those - which means that if you are able to increase their survivalchances you are still succesful in a biological sense.
In other words: gay animals that care for the offspring of their sisters or serve as "guards" to distract predators make perfect sense. This also explains altruism.

That said... do you believe humans should always act like animals - purely by instinct ? Act as "nature intended" ?

The biological imperative is to promote your own genes. Your close family also has those - which means that if you are able to increase their survivalchances you are still succesful in a biological sense.
In other words: gay animals that care for the offspring of their sisters or serve as "guards" to distract predators make perfect sense. This also explains altruism.

That said... do you believe humans should always act like animals - purely by instinct ? Act as "nature intended" ?

Suppose I were to say so?
I can't impose Divine Law for obvious reasons.
( It wouldn't strike me as sensible to do so even if feasable. )
But - what is wrong with Natural Law?

Natural law simply is - and it is free from any normative statements.

Suppose I were to say so?
I can't impose Divine Law for obvious reasons.
( It wouldn't strike me as sensible to do so even if feasable. )
But - what is wrong with Natural Law?

Natural law simply is - and it is free from any normative statements.

I can respect that :) However, I am curious to see how people would include concepts like e.g. building churches in such a behaviour system.
But yes - it might be a good way to live.

I can respect that :) However, I am curious to see how people would include concepts like e.g. building churches in such a behaviour system.
But yes - it might be a good way to live.


Let me give you a reason: appeasing an Almighty.
You don't have to believe in one in order to see how such a construction would appear sensible.
( Few religions have accepted the idea of a benevolent god, historically. )

But to return back to track: it has always struck me as very strange that those who oppose ( certain ) normative ideas always insist on imposing a new set of normative ideas.

Since normative ideas rely on personal convictions, how can such ideas be imposed?

A good ( read: effective ) lawsystem would have as few normative ideas as possible.
(You can't order people to love eachother - they do, or they don't, and it is impossible to impose love. )

That said... do you believe humans should always act like animals - purely by instinct ? Act as "nature intended" ?
Here's the thing about that, though...

See, the human brain evolved in a marvelous and significant way. Our primitive, instinctive "lizard brain" became less and less powerful as our great, big, fat forebrain expanded. To say that "nature intended" for us to blindly follow instinct is to ignore the most prominent and important feature that separates humans from all other known forms of animal life. The reality is that "nature intended" for instinct to play a pretty small role in our lives.

Dear ladies: if a straight guy is pissing you off with his sexist behaviour you can tell him off in 90% of cases. Dear men: if a gay guy is nagging you in 90% of cases he doesn't stop, unless you get violent. True?
Are you seriously trying to suggest that most men back off women when women say no? Have you ever been out to bars with female friends? Many, many men don't back off, especially after a few drinks; probably all this extra testosterone that women don't have.

I'll ignore the rest of your post; I assume you mean it sarcastically.

One person asked me what gave me the right to judge that homosexuality is wrong. My only response is that I do not decide what is right and neither can any person. It is God who decides what is right and what is wrong and that is why homosexuality is wrong. It is wrong because God has decreed it so. Therefore, our government should give no support to such practices.

One person asked me what gave me the right to judge that homosexuality is wrong. My only response is that I do not decide what is right and neither can any person. It is God who decides what is right and what is wrong and that is why homosexuality is wrong. It is wrong because God has decreed it so. Therefore, our government should give no support to such practices.

Yay! Let's all blindly follow the teachings of an old, oft-translated book and become bigots!

For crying OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People, jeez, focus! I know that gay people are around since the beginning of human race. I know gay animals are around, too. I don't mind and to be frank, I don't care either. In western culture gay people are everywhere and it's "okay", "normal" or "right".
No, it's not.
Biologically male should have male instincts, have sex with females, procreate. We do not choose whether we want to be straight or gay, we are what we are and should not be ostricized for it. But bear in mind, once you are born as a male and your mentality is not exactly male (( i.e you're camp gay person ) - don't even think that is normal. You're a fucking freak of nature. You should eat pussy, not suck cock. Not your fault, though.

So please, go hail gay men.

Dear ladies: if a straight guy is pissing you off with his sexist behaviour you can tell him off in 90% of cases. Dear men: if a gay guy is nagging you in 90% of cases he doesn't stop, unless you get violent. True?


No.


I am sure many of you think that homosexualism is enviromental. A boy raised by two gay men will take interest in the same sex in most cases. face it.


Face it... why? You are arguing against overwhelming evidence.


Gay marriages? pfffffffffffffffff..........

Wake the fuck up before this world deteriorates. You have a right to think differently. You have a right to express yourself. You have a right to fuck whoever you want unless they are not adult yet. You have a right to live and you will definitely die. BEING GAY IS NORMAL ONLY BECAUSE YOU GET TO SEE GAY PEOPLE EVERYWHERE. IT'S AS NORMAL AS FUCKING ANIMALS, WHEN WE GET TO SEE IT EVERYWHERE. IT'S AS NORMAL AS EATING SHIT FOR LUNCH< WHEN WE GET TO SEE IT EVERYWHERE.


If you want excrement for lunch, knock yourself out... regarding the animal sex, you appear to be underestimating the importance of consent.


Please.... What happens around is normal when defined as such by the society.

Nature intented differently.


No. 'Naturally', about 10% of the human population is same-sex orientated. Naturally, many animals related to us (and not closely related) exhibit bisexual or homosexual tendencies.


Kind regards,

Cockstein

I don't 'believe' the kind regards, because the platitude doesn't match the message. Plus - looking at the name, I'm not yet convinced you aren't a 'troll'.

One person asked me what gave me the right to judge that homosexuality is wrong. My only response is that I do not decide what is right and neither can any person. It is God who decides what is right and what is wrong and that is why homosexuality is wrong. It is wrong because God has decreed it so. Therefore, our government should give no support to such practices.

Why? Our government is not your church.

One person asked me what gave me the right to judge that homosexuality is wrong. My only response is that I do not decide what is right and neither can any person. It is God who decides what is right and what is wrong and that is why homosexuality is wrong. It is wrong because God has decreed it so. Therefore, our government should give no support to such practices.

Why follow the word of one book. Instead make your own decisions not rely on decisions being made for you

The biological imperative is to promote your own genes. Your close family also has those - which means that if you are able to increase their survivalchances you are still succesful in a biological sense.
In other words: gay animals that care for the offspring of their sisters or serve as "guards" to distract predators make perfect sense. This also explains altruism.

That said... do you believe humans should always act like animals - purely by instinct ? Act as "nature intended" ?

The biological imperative is to have an orgasm. No animal that reproduces sexually thinks "ok time to procreate" they think "ok time to fuck".

As humans, we still have that instinct. Have you been aroused? Thats instinct. Its not a switch in your brain you flip manually. The difference between a human and an animal though, is we recognize that instinct as well as its consequences.

One person asked me what gave me the right to judge that homosexuality is wrong. My only response is that I do not decide what is right and neither can any person. It is God who decides what is right and what is wrong and that is why homosexuality is wrong. It is wrong because God has decreed it so. Therefore, our government should give no support to such practices.

God also says not to eat pork. Funny, the sale of pork is still legal.

Yay! Let's all blindly follow the teachings of an old, oft-translated book and become bigots!

Oh come on...Americans arent bigots. They are still better than african countries and countries like Iran...:rolleyes:

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/3623/lawsonhomosexuality6ja.png

Sorry, you are.

Get your church out of your government, then we can talk.

Why? Our government is not your church.

If the majority votes so, his Church WILL be your Government.

( Not that I would vote so. )

Oh come on...Americans arent bigots. They are still better than african countries and countries like Iran...:rolleyes:

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/3623/lawsonhomosexuality6ja.png

I don't remember Iran or African countries claiming to be beacons of freedom and democracy...

I don't remember Iran or African countries claiming to be beacons of freedom and democracy...

Indeed - Iran and Algeria don't claim to be democracies, and they sho'nuff aint better!

If the majority votes so, his Church WILL be your Government.

( Not that I would vote so. )
In a pure democracy that would be a correct statement ... but we have set very deffinate limits on our democracy at creation.

Oh come on...Americans arent bigots. They are still better than african countries and countries like Iran...:rolleyes:

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/3623/lawsonhomosexuality6ja.png

Yeah because no homosexual has ever been killed for being gay in the US...

Either way, that map is appalling.

If the majority votes so, his Church WILL be your Government.

( Not that I would vote so. )

Incorrect. The first amendment says so.

Yeah because no homosexual has ever been killed for being gay in the US...

Either way, that map is appalling.



Incorrect. The first amendment says so.

Amendments can be Amended.

( I repeat: not that I would vote so. )

Yeah because no homosexual has ever been killed for being gay in the US...

Either way, that map is appalling.

Notice how majority of USA falls in the same category with China, the country USA critizes constantly and the country who got only 1 (ONE-for emphasis) less political party then US.

One person asked me what gave me the right to judge that homosexuality is wrong. My only response is that I do not decide what is right and neither can any person. It is God who decides what is right and what is wrong and that is why homosexuality is wrong. It is wrong because God has decreed it so.

When and where did God decree it so? I didn't know God decreed anything, except maybe the 10 Commandments. I was under the impression the Bible was writen by humans who were INSPIRED by God, not recipients of God's decrees.

Therefore, our government should give no support to such practices.

Where do you live? Because most Western nations these days are not theocracies, and the governments job is not to support or oppose that which is sopported or opposed by religion. In fact, in my (sometimes) glorious nation, we have the beautiful First Ammendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." (I quoted that from memory, forgive any slight incorrect words/phrases). Even more wonderfully, we have this nifty thing called "substantive due process" and "the doctrine of incorporation" which came about from the 14th Ammendment and allows some of those things in the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states. See, so what your suggesting, government not supporting things because of religion, clearly violates the Constitution. Unless, of course, you live outside of these United States.

Notice how majority of USA falls in the same category with China, the country USA critizes constantly and the country who got only 1 (ONE-for emphasis) less political party then US.

Yeah, and every time we criticize places such as China and Russia they slap us in the face, basically saying "Uh, you torture people, you are in no place to lecture us about rights."

What should be debated is whether marriage itself should be allowed. It's such an arcaine way of certifying a relationship.

arcane not arcaine... sorry

Yeah, and every time we criticize places such as China and Russia they slap us in the face, basically saying "Uh, you torture people, you are in no place to lecture us about rights."

Then dont whine about "America-Bashing". If you are going to hold yourselves as a beacon of freedom & democracy, without considering your own mistakes, be prepared to be ridiculed...

Then dont whine about "America-Bashing". If you are going to hold yourselves as a beacon of freedom & democracy, without considering your own mistakes, be prepared to be ridiculed...
Most people that see and recognize stuff like this (like the quoted poster) are not the ones whining about America bashing

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*

The position of a TRUE conservative would be... it should be left up to the states to decide what is right for their constituients and districts, rather then flaunting the idea that there should be one universal (federal) law from marriage. Marriage like education falls in the realm of State powers, and as a true conservative, I say, let the states decide for themselves .

If the majority votes so, his Church WILL be your Government.

( Not that I would vote so. )

Not mine. I'm not native... I can 'go home'.

I see where you are headed with it - but it would mean overturning some of the most basic principles... I believe it would overturn the 'freedom of religion', to have a theocratic government.

Before I explode...

I will calmly count down from 10. Now, may I ask anyone willing to answer why banning gay marriage "protects the sanctity of marriage"? Or why legalizing it would be "dangerous" to "normal", heterosexual partnerships? Or what exactly they mean by saying gay marriage is a threat to family?

I'm sorry. I just don't get it.

What sanctity? What about heterosexual partnerships are we trying to "destroy"? How exactly do gays pose a threat to the conventional concept of a "family"? What "family" do you mean, anyway?

Sorry. Bit of a change of topic.

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.

It's funny how that one person who opposes your statement is an idiot simply because he has chosen to disagree with you.

Now is offered a set of facts:

Marriage, as defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, is, "1. a.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996, it is, "1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law."

Now is offered translation of these definitions. The word marriage, both in law and in pure definition by common speech, pertains to a legal binding union between a man (a male, a man) and a female (a female, a woman). Therefore, having a marriage cannot, by definition, exist between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
The government came up with a solution to this, civil unions. A Civil Union, as defined by Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition, is "a legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex."
Therefore, it would be appreciated if the word "marriage" would stop being used in the place of "civil union" due to the fact that they are not the same. In the case of civil unions, there is no reason why two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to get together, show their love, and enter into a civil union just as any heterosexual couple would enter into a marriage.

Victorum has spoken.

It's funny how that one person who opposes your statement is an idiot simply because he has chosen to disagree with you.

Now is offered a set of facts:

Marriage, as defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, is, "1. a.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996, it is, "1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law."

Now is offered translation of these definitions. The word marriage, both in law and in pure definition by common speech, pertains to a legal binding union between a man (a male, a man) and a female (a female, a woman). Therefore, having a marriage cannot, by definition, exist between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
The government came up with a solution to this, civil unions. A Civil Union, as defined by Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition, is "a legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex."
Therefore, it would be appreciated if the word "marriage" would stop being used in the place of "civil union" due to the fact that they are not the same. In the case of civil unions, there is no reason why two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to get together, show their love, and enter into a civil union just as any heterosexual couple would enter into a marriage.

Victorum has spoken.

Victorum was very eloquent.

However, Victorum was also entirely irrelevent.

Marriage is defined in a lot of different ways... it can mean the joint of two pieces of wood, for example... but those definitions are not important - since the definition is decided by how the phrase is used, not vice versa.

People have been getting married for thousands of years. With or without 'church' blessings, in countries under a wide array of different religions.

Our CURRENT 'marriage' code, is based on the CURRENT model which derives from Christian tradition... but Marriage predates, not only the Christian tradition, but even the Hebrew traditions on which the Christian is based.

And not ALL traditions have required one man and one woman... some have allowed more partners of one gender or the other, some have allowed 'groups' to be united... some have allowed same-sex unions.

Whipping out your dictionary is trivial and irrelevent.

It is like watching the Moon falling on the Earth (let's ignore the physics), and denying it because your dictionary says 'the Moon is in permanent orbit'...

Victorum was very eloquent.

However, Victorum was also entirely irrelevent.

Marriage is defined in a lot of different ways... it can mean the joint of two pieces of wood, for example... but those definitions are not important - since the definition is decided by how the phrase is used, not vice versa.

People have been getting married for thousands of years. With or without 'church' blessings, in countries under a wide array of different religions.

Our CURRENT 'marriage' code, is based on the CURRENT model which derives from Christian tradition... but Marriage predates, not only the Christian tradition, but even the Hebrew traditions on which the Christian is based.

And not ALL traditions have required one man and one woman... some have allowed more partners of one gender or the other, some have allowed 'groups' to be united... some have allowed same-sex unions.

Whipping out your dictionary is trivial and irrelevent.

It is like watching the Moon falling on the Earth (let's ignore the physics), and denying it because your dictionary says 'the Moon is in permanent orbit'...


Fark.com has posted several stories relating: the marriage of a 75 year old man to a dog, and a woman to a snake(respectively). Granted, this happened in India, but to give examples with slightly more cultural relevance, I will point out the Mormons (polygamy), the Arabs (polygamy) the Ancient greeks (ritual marriages).

And, for the clincher, the Hebrews. Abraham had at least two wives, and other Old Testament figures had several. Now, here's a good question: if God doesn't like it when marriage is more than one man and one woman, and if we are all supposed to listen to what God supposedly said, then why is it that we pay attention to part where it says "Kill the gays" (I'm paraphrasing, mind you.) and yet ignore the part where the founder of Judaism married two women?

Picking and choosing may work at the buffet line, but it's not the best idea when you're talking about religious messages.

What should be debated is whether marriage itself should be allowed. It's such an arcaine way of certifying a relationship.

Yeah, thats true socially and religiously, maybe, but arent there legal benefits that come with it? In the legal sense, isn't marriage simply a contract? Any two consenting adults ought to be able to enter into a contract if they want, why should it differ because of their sex? It shouldnt, as far as I can tell.

I never said that gays should be imprisoned, but i just mean to say that they should keep all their homosexual emotions to themselves, and change their ways.

there are two types of people when they argue.

1. the ones that have gone so far in the sin (or whatever the topic of the argument is) that they simply blow off every counter argument that people bring to the table. those people are bias and not worth argueing with.

2. the people who have not yet decided or gone too far in the topic of argumentation and are humble enough to change if they seen reason to.

All of you, (or at least all who have raised their voice) are of option #1.

Well I must say that is the most hypocritical thing you have posted yet. You seem to be of the belief that you can be the only one who is right on this one. (and I said SEEM to be, as in that is what you are comming across as) which would place you more firmly in option one then anyone else who has raised their voice on this forum thus far.

Yeah, I know, it can make one want to vomit, all the hate some people spew. As for the referendum, yeah, unfortunately democracy does not always make the best or most just decisions. Sadly, equality and justice take way too long, but one can hope eventually it will come about.


After all that is what my generation is here for. And I am not the only one my age who can not understand what the problem with homosexual marriage is.

For crying OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People, jeez, focus! I know that gay people are around since the beginning of human race. I know gay animals are around, too. I don't mind and to be frank, I don't care either. In western culture gay people are everywhere and it's "okay", "normal" or "right".
No, it's not.
Biologically male should have male instincts, have sex with females, procreate. We do not choose whether we want to be straight or gay, we are what we are and should not be ostricized for it. But bear in mind, once you are born as a male and your mentality is not exactly male (( i.e you're camp gay person ) - don't even think that is normal. You're a fucking freak of nature. You should eat pussy, not suck cock. Not your fault, though.

So please, go hail gay men.

Dear ladies: if a straight guy is pissing you off with his sexist behaviour you can tell him off in 90% of cases. Dear men: if a gay guy is nagging you in 90% of cases he doesn't stop, unless you get violent. True?

I am sure many of you think that homosexualism is enviromental. A boy raised by two gay men will take interest in the same sex in most cases. face it.

Gay marriages? pfffffffffffffffff..........

Wake the fuck up before this world deteriorates. You have a right to think differently. You have a right to express yourself. You have a right to fuck whoever you want unless they are not adult yet. You have a right to live and you will definitely die. BEING GAY IS NORMAL ONLY BECAUSE YOU GET TO SEE GAY PEOPLE EVERYWHERE. IT'S AS NORMAL AS FUCKING ANIMALS, WHEN WE GET TO SEE IT EVERYWHERE. IT'S AS NORMAL AS EATING SHIT FOR LUNCH< WHEN WE GET TO SEE IT EVERYWHERE.

Please.... What happens around is normal when defined as such by the society.

Nature intented differently.

Kind regards,

Cockstein


Tell me little boy, does your daddy still buy you hookers and beat you to try and make you a man? I mean honestly with an attitude that that hookers are the only way you are getting laid.

Kind regards,
DiStefano-Schultz

It's funny how that one person who opposes your statement is an idiot simply because he has chosen to disagree with you.

Now is offered a set of facts:

Marriage, as defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, is, "1. a.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996, it is, "1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law."

Now is offered translation of these definitions. The word marriage, both in law and in pure definition by common speech, pertains to a legal binding union between a man (a male, a man) and a female (a female, a woman). Therefore, having a marriage cannot, by definition, exist between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
The government came up with a solution to this, civil unions. A Civil Union, as defined by Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition, is "a legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex."
Therefore, it would be appreciated if the word "marriage" would stop being used in the place of "civil union" due to the fact that they are not the same. In the case of civil unions, there is no reason why two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to get together, show their love, and enter into a civil union just as any heterosexual couple would enter into a marriage.

Victorum has spoken.

Victorum has spoken to his own ignorance... Gay Marriage can exist, because "marriage" itself is nothing more than an adaptation of a word whose original meaning merely conveyed the idea of a firm bond between two things [specifically as a Old French Nautical term for the tying of two ropes together]... Later applied to the union of man and wife.....

Language is not static, a word's meaning can change over time, sometimes drastically.... This aruging agaisnt the inclusing of homosexuals into marriage, based only upon the present book "definition" of the term "marriage" is nothing but a ruse.

Oh dear god! Those evil, icky gays might get the ability to marry. The entire world as we know it will be destroyed!
probably

Yeah because no homosexual has ever been killed for being gay in the US...

Incorrect there are many documented cases where the perpetrator has directly admitted that the reason for the killing was that the victim was gay. The young man dragged behind a truck in Colorado was one of the more high profile cases. He was then tied to a fence in the position of a crucifixtion and died from his injuries on the fence.

probably

Oh yes. I can see it now. Just as the first gay couple ties the knot, Satan erupts out the earth's crust and smites everyone.


Oh wait. Gay people have gotten married all over the world before, and I've yet to hear reports of Satan or the world ending. Looks like, once again, Bigotry is proven to be a load of crap.

Incorrect there are many documented cases where the perpetrator has directly admitted that the reason for the killing was that the victim was gay. The young man dragged behind a truck in Colorado was one of the more high profile cases. He was then tied to a fence in the position of a crucifixtion and died from his injuries on the fence.

I believe the poster was being sarcastic. As shown by the '...' at the end of his post.

Incorrect there are many documented cases where the perpetrator has directly admitted that the reason for the killing was that the victim was gay. The young man dragged behind a truck in Colorado was one of the more high profile cases. He was then tied to a fence in the position of a crucifixtion and died from his injuries on the fence.

The "..." signifies my sarcasm.

I agree wilth this!!! Everyone should be given the same chance to say their vows, and attempt happiness (or produce unhappiness) as everyone Gay marriage is supported by the masses. The only people that dont particularly support it are the government. Is america's government not run BY the people FOR the people? :sniper:

So what now? Women are inferrior to you? I should go and slap and claw you to death but I shall refrain. Bad idea to insult a feminist and a gay rights advocite in the same phrase...
of course not dumbass, as long as you're human and you have a proper balance of the chemical reactions in your brain, and you think and are AS GOOD AS anyone else, then you're equal to me.
I think retarded people are inferior to me. That's why I intend to fix them (don't know how yet, maybe when they allow cloning/genetic amnipulation/stem cell research) if there were a cure for gay people I would give it to you all (force you even) and then we could all be one big happy people, but there isn't, probably won't be, and so, I'm sorry but i WILL save your soul...even if you die in the proccess...

So what now? Women are inferrior to you? I should go and slap and claw you to death but I shall refrain. Bad idea to insult a feminist and a gay rights advocite in the same phrase...

"Slap and claw" me if you want, but don't be suprised when you recieve a proudly masculine punch in the dong you don't deserve.

no, i disagree.

This thread has more flames than a.......um.....help me out here, will ya guys?

Victorum has spoken to his own ignorance... Gay Marriage can exist, because "marriage" itself is nothing more than an adaptation of a word whose original meaning merely conveyed the idea of a firm bond between two things [specifically as a Old French Nautical term for the tying of two ropes together]... Later applied to the union of man and wife.....

Language is not static, a word's meaning can change over time, sometimes drastically.... This aruging agaisnt the inclusing of homosexuals into marriage, based only upon the present book "definition" of the term "marriage" is nothing but a ruse.

Currently, the problem gay couples are having pertains to the law. Most people do not have anything against gay couples uniting in a civil union and showing their love for each other. Whether or not you DO think it is right is your own opinion, and you aren't wrong or right because others say you are.

The law is very specific with its language. Language is important because that is how people win cases, they use the language of the law and sometimes laws themselves. Language is very important. It is in this reason that the definitions of marriage, or of civil union, must be certified and must be made concrete. Either call "marriage" the union of two loving persons for life and make it an asexual word, or use "civil union" for gay couples and "marriage" for heterosexual couples. It doesn't matter which is done, but something should be done.

So yes, friend, language is quite important.


When Massachusetts decided to make gay marriages legal, many gay couples from out of state came to Mass to get married. These couples were then later told that their marriages were not going to be recognized by their home states. It appears that instead of making it so hard to be free, we should offer people the ability to do what they wish. If that were the case, if it were just about freedoms and what is right, it would already be done. The problem is, laws are made because politicians are keeping close watch on their election dates and times. If more laws were made because it is right and not because the responsible politicians are up for reelection soon, it appears that more beneficial things would happen.