NationStates Jolt Archive

The webster's dictionary, states marriage is a union between a man and a woman, the government of the U.S. sees it as the same deffinition. This alone should prevent gays from being married.

And u may say that the laws r stupid but they r still laws, and must b respected or changed, until they r changed u can and should b arrested for them.

Beastality and Homosexuality my not have a direct correlation, however, gays being allowed more rights, would give the ppl that believe in beastality, an oppening to say hey y not us.
And who's to say an animal can't give consent, by ur logic any1 who can't speak the same language as u is unable to give consent.

Finally, we can get somewhere, if you told me you're gay I would understand why you are defending yourself so harshly. Have to go to bed, hopefully will chat later.

Does someone have to be gay to argue in favor of treating them like human beings?

I am not gay. In fact, I am engaged to a man - and will be married to him in less than a year.

But that doesn't stop me from defending the rights of those you would trample.

Were there no white people in the civil rights marches alongside Martin Luther King, Jr?

And u may say that the laws r stupid but they r still laws, and must b respected or changed, until they r changed u can and should b arrested for them.

Moron. The whole point of this discussion is that we want the laws changed and you don't.

Sounds to me like person 3 needs to consult a freaking psychologist before he hangs himself because his red fishies is dead and that such an atrocity happening robs him of his hope for the world.

This is certainly the most ridiculous statement in the last 10 pages of this thread.

Whats ur point there is still a victim which was sum1's argument, for y certain laws r on the books, even tho many laws there isn't a victim. Speeding, jaywalking, shoes, certain gun laws, all do not have a victim.

The webster's dictionary, states marriage is a union between a man and a woman, the government of the U.S. sees it as the same deffinition. This alone should prevent gays from being married.

That is the most idiotic statement thus made on this thread.

Once upon a time, the law defined marriage as between a man and a woman of the same ethnicity. Does that mean interracial marriage should have been disallowed just on that basis?

Once upon a time, a marriage was nothing more than a transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her new husband. Does that mean that men and women should never be equal in a marriage?

Beastality and Homosexuality my not have a direct correlation, however, gays being allowed more rights, would give the ppl that believe in beastality, an oppening to say hey y not us.

And the answer would be quick and simple: animals cannot consent.

And who's to say an animal can't give consent, by ur logic any1 who can't speak the same language as u is unable to give consent.

An animal cannot give consent because it does not have the capacity to, any more than a child does.

And you would be hard pressed to show that anyone who did not speak your language consented to having sex with you.

Moron. The whole point of this discussion is that we want the laws changed and you don't.

That is where u r wrong, i do wan't the laws changed, and stricter laws, to b enacted.

The webster's dictionary, states marriage is a union between a man and a woman, the government of the U.S. sees it as the same deffinition. This alone should prevent gays from being married.


And African-Americans used to be slave-laborers and were regarded by the US government as 3'5 of a person. Just because it's an old idea doesn't make it right or unchangeable.

Whats ur point there is still a victim which was sum1's argument, for y certain laws r on the books, even tho many laws there isn't a victim. Speeding, jaywalking, shoes, certain gun laws, all do not have a victim.

Speeding is a crime to prevent something dangerous from happening. Jaywalking for the same reason. These are crimes because if people did commit them, they would have victims.

That is where u r wrong, i do wan't the laws changed, and stricter laws, to b enacted.

Do tell, what laws would you like?

Speeding is a crime to prevent something dangerous from happening. Jaywalking for the same reason. These are crimes because if people did commit them, they would have victims.

Actually those laws r broken every day without any victims, thus by ur logic, sense there wans't a victim the laws must b taken out. And laws about endargered species should b taken out after all animals have no rights.

Whats ur point there is still a victim which was sum1's argument,

No, there isn't. A victim has to be harmed without their consent. A person who chooses to be a bigot has chosen to feel bad about other human beings being treated equally. Your argument is no different from saying that members of the KKK are psychologically harmed when black men are elected to office.

Speeding,

Speeding is reckless behavior which can cause accidents - which cause harm.

jaywalking,

See above.

shoes,

Huh?

certain gun laws,

Gun laws are made to prevent people from being shot - to prevent the creation of victims.

The webster's dictionary, states marriage is a union between a man and a woman, the government of the U.S. sees it as the same deffinition. This alone should prevent gays from being married.

A dictionary is not a law. Definitions for words change. Look up "gay", for example.


And u may say that the laws r stupid but they r still laws, and must b respected or changed, until they r changed u can and should b arrested for them.

Stupid laws need to be changed. Which is exactly what the gays and lesbians who want equal rights are trying to have done. Did you have a point?


Beastality and Homosexuality my not have a direct correlation, however, gays being allowed more rights, would give the ppl that believe in beastality, an oppening to say hey y not us.

No, it would not. Canada, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium, etc. all allow marriage between two persons of the same genders. None of them allow bestiality or marriage between a human and an animal. Why?

Because, as it was stated repeatedly, animals can neither consent nor sign a contract. Marriage is a contract. Animals cannot sign contracts. Therefore they cannot get married. Animals cannot legally consent. Therefore they cannot give their consent to sexual relations with a human being.


And who's to say an animal can't give consent, by ur logic any1 who can't speak the same language as u is unable to give consent.
No. It is not a question of language. It is a question of being an adult human being or not. Adult human beings are the only ones recognized under the law to be able to consent. If a human being shows clear signs of consent despite a different language, there is nothing illegal in it.

Actually those laws r broken every day without any victims, thus by ur logic, sense there wans't a victim the laws must b taken out. And laws about endargered species should b taken out after all animals have no rights.


No. What I'm saying is that the speeding and jaywalking laws prevent other crimes from happening, such as Vehicular Manslaughter. These laws keep our streets a fairly safe place. Therefore, they should be kept.
I didn't say anything about endangered animals.

Do tell, what laws would you like?

The complete and utter outlawing of any gay/homosexual act, in public. No gay marriage, or any other rite, that would b given to a union between a man and a woman.

And luckily i don't know of any ammendment to the consitution that protects them from such laws.

And you would be hard pressed to show that anyone who did not speak your language consented to having sex with you.
On this I disagree. Lots of tourists have sexual relations with residents of countries they visit, and consent is usually quite evident.

Remember human beings also communicate with body language.

The complete and utter outlawing of any gay/homosexual act, in public. No gay marriage, or any other rite, that would b given to a union between a man and a woman.

And luckily i don't know of any ammendment to the consitution that protects them from such laws.

And luckily, there aren't enough moronic politicians to allow it to happen.

On this I disagree. Lots of tourists have sexual relations with residents of countries they visit, and consent is usually quite evident.

Remember human beings also communicate with body language.

Another for example, I saw on COPS, a women and a man were married, an older couple, the man spoke no English, the women spoke no Spanish.

And luckily, there aren't enough moronic politicians to allow it to happen.

And hopefully there rn't enof ignorant, ones in America to enact the opposite laws as those. Luckily they haven't yet.
And besides y don't gays just move to one of those countries or something.

The complete and utter outlawing of any gay/homosexual act, in public. No gay marriage, or any other rite, that would b given to a union between a man and a woman.

And luckily i don't know of any ammendment to the consitution that protects them from such laws.
Good thing laws are not enacted on the whim and prejudices of citizens.

Otherwise we might see laws that enact complete and utter outlawing of any Christian, Jewish, Black, Conservative, or Shoe-Wearing act in public.

There is a reason discrimination is NOT to be state sponsored. Because the minute you start restricting other people's rights, you never know when you'll be next.

And hopefully there rn't enof ignorant, ones in America to enact the opposite laws as those. Luckily they haven't yet.
And besides y don't gays just move to one of those countries or something.

If those laws allowing us to marry are enacted, will you move?
If not, why would you expect me to?

And hopefully there rn't enof ignorant, ones in America to enact the opposite laws as those. Luckily they haven't yet.
And besides y don't gays just move to one of those countries or something.
Why don't YOU move to a theocratic repressive regime, like Iran?

Um depending on ur deffinition of rite, then all laws restrict ppl's rites. If ur deffinition of a rite is the opposite of that, then laws have nothing to do with rites.

Why don't YOU move to a theocratic repressive regime, like Iran?
That wouldn't work, Iran is a muslim regime. He only likes theocratic, repressive, Christian regime.

Um depending on ur deffinition of rite, then all laws restrict ppl's rites. If ur deffinition of a rite is the opposite of that, then laws have nothing to do with rites.

I only know 3 definitions of a right.

1. right as in a right turn.
2. right as in not wrong.
3. right as in basic civil liberties.

Do you know of more right's that I'm unaware of?

Why don't YOU move to a theocratic repressive regime, like Iran?

Because im not the one trying to change the laws, im fine with them the way they r. I would prefer the laws to stay the same on this matter. However u wan't the laws to change, so y not move to a country where the laws r already that way?

Because im not the one trying to change the laws, im fine with them the way they r. I would prefer the laws to stay the same on this matter. However u wan't the laws to change, so y not move to a country where the laws r already that way?

Your contradicting yourself. Earlier you said you wanted the laws changed because you thought they weren't strict enough. So move to a place where they are strict enough.

I only know 3 definitions of a right.

1. right as in a right turn.
2. right as in not wrong.
3. right as in basic civil liberties.

Do you know of more right's that I'm unaware of?

Ok change "Your deffintion of righte" to "Your deffintion of civil liberties" and then read it again.

Your contradicting yourself. Earlier you said you wanted the laws changed because you thought they weren't strict enough. So move to a place where they are strict enough.

No i am not contradicting myself, earlier i said i wanted the laws changed. I never said i was trying to get the laws changed. Big diffrence.

Ok change "Your deffintion of righte" to "Your deffintion of civil liberties" and then read it again.

The defninition of civil liberties has no opposite.

Because im not the one trying to change the laws, im fine with them the way they r.

You said on this very same page that you wanted the laws to change and be tougher. You seem to be either a) utterly unable of logic reasoning or b) a liar.



I would prefer the laws to stay the same on this matter. However u wan't the laws to change, so y not move to a country where the laws r already that way?
Because they want to laws of their own damn country to protect them.

No i am not contradicting myself, earlier i said i wanted the laws changed. I never said i was trying to get the laws changed. Big diffrence.

There really is no difference. Because if I handed you a petition right now to make the laws stricter, you would sign it, therefore you would be trying. And merely arguing it on here is trying to change it because your trying to change our opinions.

You said on this very same page that you wanted the laws to change and be tougher. You seem to be either a) utterly unable of logic reasoning or b) a liar.



Because they want to laws of their own damn country to protect them.

I said i wanted the laws to b changed, but i am also content with the current ones. I never said that i am trying to get the laws changed.

Y should the laws of their country protect them from what their country deems wrong?

There really is no difference. Because if I handed you a petition right now to make the laws stricter, you would sign it, therefore you would be trying. And merely arguing it on here is trying to change it because your trying to change our opinions.

Yes if u handed me a petition i would sign it, THEN i would b trying however now i am not trying.
And currently i am not trying to change ur oppions, u may b trying to change mine, but it does not go both ways. I am merely stating my oppinion to help let u guys c the otherside of the argument. And thus i am not trying to change ur oppinion and not trying to do anything, i am merely enlightening u.

I said i wanted the laws to b changed, but i am also content with the current ones. I never said that i am trying to get the laws changed.

Y should the laws of their country protect them from what their country deems wrong?

Because the country does not deem it wrong. Anti-homosexual marriage isn't a universal American stance by a long shot, and those of us who want to see those marriage bans removed will not be ignored as some kind of strange minority.

I said i wanted the laws to b changed, but i am also content with the current ones. I never said that i am trying to get the laws changed.

You contradict yourself again in this very sentence. My point is made.


Y should the laws of their country protect them from what their country deems wrong?
A country does not have a morality or moral beliefs. Human beings and citizens of that country might.

Separation of Church and State exist specifically to ensure morality isn't legislated. Laws are meant to protect citizens of a country, not repress them. Laws are meant to discourage harm coming to people, not codify morals.

Yes if u handed me a petition i would sign it, THEN i would b trying however now i am not trying.
And currently i am not trying to change ur oppions, u may b trying to change mine, but it does not go both ways. I am merely stating my oppinion to help let u guys c the otherside of the argument. And thus i am not trying to change ur oppinion and not trying to do anything, i am merely enlightening u.

WE already know the other side of the argument. And you know that we know the other side of the argument. So no you're not mearely enlightenng us.

And there is no difference between you currently not trying to change it and the fact that you would try to change it.

Well, I'm a regular, blue collar guy. Regular guys figure that either you suck cock or you don't. Bisexual is just gay with more female friends.

Not all regular guys. I personally think you can't help who you are attracted to - whether that's male, female, or both (but in the case of people attracted to kids, considering how sick it would be to do something sexual with a kid, and the effects you could cause by doing it, you CAN choose whether to act on that attraction. plus you can get help at http://www.stopitnow.org.uk or http://www.stopitnow.org , both of which offer a confidential, non-judgemental helpline for anyone worried about their feelings towards children)

*snip* i am merely enlightening u.
The irony of this statement is burning away my computer screen.

You contradict yourself again in this very sentence. My point is made.


A country does not have a morality or moral beliefs. Human beings and citizens of that country might.

Separation of Church and State exist specifically to ensure morality isn't legislated. Laws are meant to protect citizens of a country, not repress them. Laws are meant to discourage harm coming to people, not codify morals.

There isn't any contradiction in that sentence.
Ok excuse me change "country" to "citzens of that country"
Separation of Church and State originally existed to keep ppl from having to practice an offical church, not to keep religous believes from influencing laws/legislation.

There isn't any contradiction in that sentence.
Ok excuse me change "country" to "citzens of that country"
Separation of Church and State originally existed to keep ppl from having to practice an offical church, not to keep religous believes from influencing laws/legislation.

Well if you keep having to change what you say, you're not very reliable. So I can't believe anything you say now.

Not all regular guys. I personally think you can't help who you are attracted to - whether that's male, female, or both (but in the case of people attracted to kids, considering how sick it would be to do something sexual with a kid, and the effects you could cause by doing it, you CAN choose whether to act on that attraction. plus you can get help at http://www.stopitnow.org.uk or http://www.stopitnow.org , both of which offer a confidential, non-judgemental helpline for anyone worried about their feelings towards children)

Yes and luckily there r more things to help gay ppl with the same kind of problems.

On this I disagree. Lots of tourists have sexual relations with residents of countries they visit, and consent is usually quite evident.

Remember human beings also communicate with body language.

I didn't say that consent cannot be given. I said you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that it had been given. If you went to another country, slept with someone who did not speak your language, and that person then claimed they had been raped, what would you say? The question of exactly how you knew they were consenting without actually saying it would definitely be brought up.

i was bought up with Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve :p

Well if you keep having to change what you say, you're not very reliable. So I can't believe anything you say now.

Thats merely because u guys nitpic at small diffrences in words, when the real meaning behind them stays the same.

I am neither for or against "gay marriages". What I am against is "gays" seem to think that when they walk in the room somewhere or down a street or where ever that they have to flaunt their "gayness" . You wanna be "gay" be "gay" but you dont have to rub each other, slobber on each other, or proudly voice "I am gay". I never walk down the street and hear " I'm heterosexual".

What is done in private of my home stays in my home, as it should for any persons sexual tendencies. I will not say whether I am "gay or "straight" but I do think "gay persons" should be a little more private in their ways. It is possible that the "gay community" brings most of the problems they have upon themselves. Fight for "the right to marry" if you choose, but stop demonstrating your preferences in public. BTW ... I am just as upset by the ones in the hetero community who do the same thing ... you have the right to do as you choose ... I also have the right to not view it.

I won't discuss the beliefs of christianity because every person has to believe what they believe, live as they believe, and deal with whatever their choices bring.

Push for your rights but remember that others in the world have rights too ... you need rights to do as you choose as an adult, but others already have the right not to view it.

ok SLam me ..lol

Well if you keep having to change what you say, you're not very reliable. So I can't believe anything you say now.
Sounds like a burn.

Maybe we're being too hard on this poor chap?
[font color="white"]Naaaaah[/color]

Yes and luckily there r more things to help gay ppl with the same kind of problems.

Problems???? Funny.

It's not a problem. Sex with children can cause many problems with children. Such as PTSD (post tramautic stress disorder). Very, very serious issues. Sex with another man doesn't cause anything.

Yes and luckily there r more things to help gay ppl with the same kind of problems.
No, there isn't. Sexual orientation cannot be changed. Period. Not matter how much you would like it to be otherwise.

I am neither for or against "gay marriages". What I am against is "gays" seem to think that when they walk in the room somewhere or down a street or where ever that they have to flaunt their "gayness" . You wanna be "gay" be "gay" but you dont have to rub each other, slobber on each other, or proudly voice "I am gay". I never walk down the street and hear " I'm heterosexual".

What is done in private of my home stays in my home, as it should for any persons sexual tendencies. I will not say whether I am "gay or "straight" but I do think "gay persons" should be a little more private in their ways. It is possible that the "gay community" brings most of the problems they have upon themselves. Fight for "the right to marry" if you choose, but stop demonstrating your preferences in public. BTW ... I am just as upset by the ones in the hetero community who do the same thing ... you have the right to do as you choose ... I also have the right to not view it.

I won't discuss the beliefs of christianity because every person has to believe what they believe, live as they believe, and deal with whatever their choices bring.

Push for your rights but remember that others in the world have rights too ... you need rights to do as you choose as an adult, but others already have the right not to view it.

ok SLam me ..lol

Ok, first, I agree, I hate gay people who flaunt the fact that they're gay. I'm gay myself and that pisses me off. So I'm gay, I don't feel the need to advertise it.

Second, I'm not going to stop demonstrating that I'm attracted to men in public. I won't act attracted to women just because it offends you. I'm sorry.

Sex with another man doesn't cause anything.
As long as the other man is also consenting, of course.

Sounds like a burn.

Maybe we're being too hard on this poor chap?
[font color="white"]Naaaaah[/color]

Looks like a useless post, and do u have narrator running on ur computer so u don't have to read?

As long as the other man is also consenting, of course.

I figured that was implied.

Another for example, I saw on COPS, a women and a man were married, an older couple, the man spoke no English, the women spoke no Spanish.

In order to obtain a marriage license, each person had to read the license in their own language - and sign it. Bad example.


Separation of Church and State originally existed to keep ppl from having to practice an offical church, not to keep religous believes from influencing laws/legislation.

If I make a law based on church doctrine, how exactly is that not forcing someone to practice an official church?


Yes and luckily there r more things to help gay ppl with the same kind of problems.

There has never been a "therapy" for homosexuality that worked. There were those who claimed to have "cured" homosexuals. Of course their "cures" were awfully temporary.

Thats merely because u guys nitpic at small diffrences in words, when the real meaning behind them stays the same.

"I want to change the laws"
and
"I do not want to change the laws"

are statements that mean the same thing?

No, there isn't. Sexual orientation cannot be changed. Period. Not matter how much you would like it to be otherwise.

Well in that case u can't say anything to ppl who r attracted to animals, or children.

In order to obtain a marriage license, each person had to read the license in their own language - and sign it. Bad example.

No, good example, becuase I was pointing out that language has nothing to do with consent.

In order to obtain a marriage license, each person had to read the license in their own language - and sign it. Bad example.



If I make a law based on church doctrine, how exactly is that not forcing someone to practice an official church?



There has never been a "therapy" for homosexuality that worked. There were those who claimed to have "cured" homosexuals. Of course their "cures" were awfully temporary.



"I want to change the laws"
and
"I do not want to change the laws"

are statements that mean the same thing?

Because u dont' make a law on a single church doctrine, u can get an idea from such but u don't make the law from it.
Well im sure such "therapy" would b equally inaffective on treating other ppl with their sexual orienation.
Thats because i didn't say either of those, i said "I wan't the laws changed' And "Im not trying to change the laws" u obviously read something diffrently entirely.

Well in that case u can't say anything to ppl who r attracted to animals, or children.

Yes we can because animals, unlike consenting gay men, are not of the same species. And children, unlike consenting gay men, don't have the ability to consent to sex.

I have absolutely no problem with meeting a new person you are attracted to and making advances or conversation or what have you ... I just think that there needs to be more common sense in doing so.

I can buy a drink for a lady friend and sit at her table and discuss the business at hand without copping a feel or necking all over her.

I am saying be a little more courteous in your public life.. i have told many a "straight person" the same thing ... because what appeals to one may not appeal to all ... dont "hide it" but dont "flaunt it" ...

I can be "gay" and have courteousy too.

I think that is one of the things that gives being homosexual a bad rap.

I have absolutely no problem with meeting a new person you are attracted to and making advances or conversation or what have you ... I just think that there needs to be more common sense in doing so.

I can buy a drink for a lady friend and sit at her table and discuss the business at hand without copping a feel or necking all over her.

I am saying be a little more courteous in your public life.. i have told many a "straight person" the same thing ... because what appeals to one may not appeal to all ... dont "hide it" but dont "flaunt it" ...

I can be "gay" and have courteousy too.

I think that is one of the things that gives being homosexual a bad rap.

I agree. It pisses me off.

Well in that case u can't say anything to ppl who r attracted to animals, or children.

Exactly, you cannot say anything about someone who is attracted to chickens or children.

You can, however, say something about someone who acts on that attraction. Because we, as a society, have decided you cant have sex with chickens or children (for obvious aforementioned reasons).

Compare it to someone who likes to axe-murder random pedestrians. Thinking about that will not put you in jail. However, acting on your impulses means you are breaking the law and you should be put in jail.

And as being gay is just another characteristic in a human AND you dont hurt anyone with this, it is therefore not a problem. Compare it to "enjoying flowers". Acting on the impulse by sniffing flowers and be gay and jolly around them doesnt hurt anyone, so it is OBVIOUSLY not a problem.

Thats because i didn't say either of those, i said "I wan't the laws changed' And "Im not trying to change the laws" u obviously read something diffrently entirely.

No, you said "I'm find with the laws the way the are"

Well in that case u can't say anything to ppl who r attracted to animals, or children.

Sure we can. We can say "sucks to be you - but your partner cannot consent and therefor you can not be allowed to act upon your natural desires".

Those people deserve pity, not scorn. And admiration for their enormous selfcontrol as long as they do not act upon their feelings.

I agree. It pisses me off.

But the question is: Does it piss you off more when it concerns gays than when it concerns heterosexuals?

I am neither for or against "gay marriages". What I am against is "gays" seem to think that when they walk in the room somewhere or down a street or where ever that they have to flaunt their "gayness" . You wanna be "gay" be "gay" but you dont have to rub each other, slobber on each other, or proudly voice "I am gay". I never walk down the street and hear " I'm heterosexual".

What is done in private of my home stays in my home, as it should for any persons sexual tendencies. I will not say whether I am "gay or "straight" but I do think "gay persons" should be a little more private in their ways. It is possible that the "gay community" brings most of the problems they have upon themselves. Fight for "the right to marry" if you choose, but stop demonstrating your preferences in public. BTW ... I am just as upset by the ones in the hetero community who do the same thing ... you have the right to do as you choose ... I also have the right to not view it.

I won't discuss the beliefs of christianity because every person has to believe what they believe, live as they believe, and deal with whatever their choices bring.

Push for your rights but remember that others in the world have rights too ... you need rights to do as you choose as an adult, but others already have the right not to view it.

ok SLam me ..lol
Just don't be friends with them if you don't like them.

I hate loud, rude people. I don't try to pass laws that make being loudness and/or rudeness in public illegal. I just don't associate with those people.

And, don't forget that yes, you do scream "I AM HETEROSEXUAL" whenever you check out a girl in public, or hold hands with your girlfriend, or talk about girls with your friends. Gays should not be expected to refrain from doing that just because it makes you uncomfortable.

There should be no such thing as a double standard.

But the question is: Does it piss you off more when it concerns gays than when it concerns heterosexuals?

What are you talking about?
PDA doesn't piss me off.
It doesn't bother me.

No, good example, becuase I was pointing out that language has nothing to do with consent.

In order to consent to the marriage contract, they each had to see it in their own language.

Because u dont' make a law on a single church doctrine, u can get an idea from such but u don't make the law from it.

And on what basis would you legislate against homosexuals?

Well im sure such "therapy" would b equally inaffective on treating other ppl with their sexual orienation.

Indeed. Sexual orientation is not something to "treat". There is no reason to turn a gay person straight, or either of them bisexual.

Thats because i didn't say either of those, i said "I wan't the laws changed' And "Im not trying to change the laws" u obviously read something diffrently entirely.

Actually, you said both. You said you want the laws changed to make them stricter. Then, you said, that you are not trying to change the laws. Then, you said you are fine with the laws the way they are.

People can go back and read your posts, you know.

Well in that case u can't say anything to ppl who r attracted to animals, or children.
You can't change their sexual orientation, either. You can tell them not to act on their desires, though, because acting on their desires would imply that a victim is left behind.

Homosexual relationships hurt no one. There is no victim when two men or two women love each other. This is why it is different. I have said so several times. Stop making me repeat myself, please. There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality.

In order to consent to the marriage contract, they each had to see it in their own language.

Which is exactly what I was saying. The fact that they both saw it in a different language is irrrelevant. I said that because someone said that people of two languages cant consent. I said that to prove that they could. You're arguing with me even thought we're saying the same thing.

I am saying be a little more courteous in your public life.. i have told many a "straight person" the same thing ... because what appeals to one may not appeal to all ... dont "hide it" but dont "flaunt it" ...


And I find it offensive when a woman wears revealing clothing, because she is obviously doing this to make herself look pretty for people of the opposite sex. So therefore she is exhibiting heterosexual behaviour. Heterosexual behaviour disgusts me...

So all women should wear burqas from now on? Only because I happen to think that women showing naked flesh is disgusting?

As you (or someone else) said, I could also just look away. So when a woman shows flesh, I will look away. And when I happen to throw a loving smile at my boyfriend, YOU will look away. And we can all live happily ever after and not interfere with OTHER PEOPLE'S lives!!!

Seriously, if you really want to interfere with other people's lives so much, maybe you should put it to a POSITIVE use. So instead of arguing how other people's rights should be restricted, you could be arguing about how other people's rights or possibilities could be expanded. Examples? Collecting money to help the poor, assisting disabled people, anything POSITIVE.

Exactly, you cannot say anything about someone who is attracted to chickens or children.

You can, however, say something about someone who acts on that attraction. Because we, as a society, have decided you cant have sex with chickens or children (for obvious aforementioned reasons).

Compare it to someone who likes to axe-murder random pedestrians. Thinking about that will not put you in jail. However, acting on your impulses means you are breaking the law and you should be put in jail.

And as being gay is just another characteristic in a human AND you dont hurt anyone with this, it is therefore not a problem. Compare it to "enjoying flowers". Acting on the impulse by sniffing flowers and be gay and jolly around them doesnt hurt anyone, so it is OBVIOUSLY not a problem.
Wow. I'm actually amazed at how you made your point demonstrated with such simple elegance. You were almost poetic about it, too. Kudos.

I'm really tired of repeating myself on here.

What are you talking about?
PDA doesn't piss me off.
It doesn't bother me.

Uhm, you did just start with "I agree" about the Forgotten Vampirez comment how disturbing PDAs* were. In which case I would say you were actually saying you were pissed off about them... Correct me if I am wrong though, in which case I will graciously apologise...



* PDA=Public Display of Affection, right?

* PDA=Public Display of Affection, right?
Yes.

Uhm, you did just start with "I agree" about the Forgotten Vampirez comment how disturbing PDAs* were. In which case I would say you were actually saying you were pissed off about them... Correct me if I am wrong though, in which case I will graciously apologise...



* PDA=Public Display of Affection, right?

PDA= Public Display of Affection.

When I said I agree, I meant that gay people who are all like "Look at me! I'm gay everybody! .... blah blah." Those type of people piss me off. I didn't mean that PDA pisses me off. PDA is actually really fun.

Wow. I'm actually amazed at how you made your point demonstrated with such simple elegance. You were almost poetic about it, too. Kudos.

thanks.
:fluffle:

PDA= Public Display of Affection.

When I said I agree, I meant that gay people who are all like "Look at me! I'm gay everybody! .... blah blah." Those type of people piss me off. I didn't mean that PDA pisses me off. PDA is actually really fun.
But you don't support laws against them. Just because something pisses you off or annoys you isn't basis enough for it to be made into a law. You can just choose not to befriend those people and ignore them.

Right?

I am saying be a little more courteous in your public life.. i have told many a "straight person" the same thing ... because what appeals to one may not appeal to all ... dont "hide it" but dont "flaunt it" ...

I can be "gay" and have courteousy too.

I think that is one of the things that gives being homosexual a bad rap.

I have said repeatedly that it is on both sides. I am not heterophobic nor am I homophobic.. I feel that a little courtesy is in order on both sides ...

And who said I was a "guy" ... btw it is much different to hold hands and chat and laugh than sticking your tongue down someones throat or grabbing a handful of booty.

If I was heterosexual woman and I sat at a table in a club and laughed and joked and bought a drink for a girlfriend, would I be labeled? Would I be announcing my sexuality? NO

If I was a homosexual woman and I sat at a table in a club and laughed and joked and bought a drink for a girlfriend, would I be labeled? Would I be announcing my sexuality?

Think about double standards. Cause both instances are the same and there should be NO LABEL...

thanks.
:fluffle:
No problem. :fluffle:

You a guy, btw? I usually only fluffle guys.

But you don't support laws against them. Just because something pisses you off or annoys you isn't basis enough for it to be made into a law. You can just choose not to befriend those people and ignore them.

Right?

I don't support laws against gay people because I am gay.

PDA= Public Display of Affection.

When I said I agree, I meant that gay people who are all like "Look at me! I'm gay everybody! .... blah blah." Those type of people piss me off. I didn't mean that PDA pisses me off. PDA is actually really fun.

Oh, I thought you agreed with the greater body of that post, which was saying that PDAs should be banned in general. I think the poster was saying that both heter- and homosexual PDAs were generally bad.

Oh well, I apologise for putting you in that corner then. :)

Oh, I thought you agreed with the greater body of that post, which was saying that PDAs should be banned in general. I think the poster was saying that both heter- and homosexual PDAs were generally bad.

Oh well, I apologise for putting you in that corner then. :)

It's ok. I did make it seem like that.

I don't support laws against gay people because I am gay.
I know. I kinda worded my post as a question to have you support it.

Just because you dislike a certain form of behaviour from anyone does not constitute grounds for discrimination. You dislike flaming gays. You can ignore them and not be their friend; you don't need to outlaw being flaming and gay just because you don't like it.

I know. I kinda worded my post as a question to have you support it.

Just because you dislike a certain form of bahaviour from anyone does not constitute grounds for discrimination. You dislike flaming gays. You can ignore them and not be their friend; you don't need to outlaw being flaming and gay just because you don't like it.

oh. Okey Dokey.
I get it now.

No problem. :fluffle:

You a guy, btw? I usually only fluffle guys.

hehe, dont worry. I am. Thank the FSM, I am... :cool:

hehe, dont worry. I am. Thank the FSM, I am... :cool:

FSM?

hehe, dont worry. I am. Thank the FSM, I am... :cool:
What's the FSM?

edit: Oh, wait, do you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :p

off topic but that fluffle is fun to watch.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

off topic but that fluffle is fun to watch.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I could sit and watch that all day.

off topic but that fluffle is fun to watch.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
Yes, fluffles are always good, whether they're fluffles of two guys, two gals, or a guy and a gal.

There's so precious little love in world, why the hell do some people work so hard to reduce it even further?

What's the FSM?

edit: Oh, wait, do you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :p

Of course, Praise His Name and His Noodly Appendage! :p

I first typed "Thank god I am", but in order not to be associated with any mainstream religious groups, I thought this was more appropriate! ;)

Yes, fluffles are always good, whether they're fluffles of two guys, two gals, or a guy and a gal.

There's so precious little love in world, why the hell do some people work so hard to reduce it even further?

Exactly.

Of course, Praise His Name and His Noodly Appendage! :p

I first typed "Thank god I am", but in order not to be associated with any mainstream religious groups, I thought this was more appropriate! ;)

Noodly Appendage? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Noodly Appendage? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
Look out the Holy Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti monster on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

On that positive note, all the fundies seem to have left town, so I'll be going back to videogames. Good everning to yall!

I am neither for or against "gay marriages". What I am against is "gays" seem to think that when they walk in the room somewhere or down a street or where ever that they have to flaunt their "gayness" . You wanna be "gay" be "gay" but you dont have to rub each other, slobber on each other, or proudly voice "I am gay". I never walk down the street and hear " I'm heterosexual".

How many times-- and in how many languages-- does this have to be explained to people?? The average straight person doesn't need to proclaim their straightness, because they have the 'benefit' of people-- in general-- assuming that they are straight. They aren't invisible, they aren't repressed, they aren't afraid to be 'out' as straight because straight people don't get assaulted for being straight. Conversely the average straight guy wouldn't appreciate people assuming that he's gay, or treating him as they would treat a gay man, because that would be a denial of his actual identity-- which tends to feel pretty damned degrading. Well the feeling is no different for gay people. Except for those who are still in the closet because the fear or shame, most of us don't appreciate people assuming we're straight, because it amounts to a denial of our actual identities as gay people. But unlike being straight, a lot of gay people aren't 'assumed' to be as they actually are. They're mislabeled because straight people tend to take for granted that 'straight is good, straight is normal, everybody is (or ought to be) straight.' That assumption works to keep us invisible and repressed, and lets people feel okay with themselves when they harass or assault us. Try looking at it from another perspective-- that of the people you're marginalising. Gawd, I'm one of the least empathic people I know, I suck at appreciating others' points of view, but this is pretty basic stuff that's been explained many times.

What is done in private of my home stays in my home, as it should for any persons sexual tendencies. I will not say whether I am "gay or "straight" but I do think "gay persons" should be a little more private in their ways. It is possible that the "gay community" brings most of the problems they have upon themselves. Fight for "the right to marry" if you choose, but stop demonstrating your preferences in public. BTW ... I am just as upset by the ones in the hetero community who do the same thing ... you have the right to do as you choose ... I also have the right to not view it.

I won't discuss the beliefs of christianity because every person has to believe what they believe, live as they believe, and deal with whatever their choices bring.

Push for your rights but remember that others in the world have rights too ... you need rights to do as you choose as an adult, but others already have the right not to view it.

ok SLam me ..lol

You claim to take issue with straight people's public displays of affection too, but I don't buy it. Why? Because it's a fucking footnote by comparison. "I wish they'd keep it to themselves, I wish they'd stop 'flaunting' it, I wish they'd keep it behind closed doors. oh and it kinda bugs me when my fellow heteros do it, too." That doesn't cut it. Sauce for the goose. If you want to oppose 'inappropriate' public expression of sexuality regardless of orientation, then you have to poo-poo both equally. Frankly I'm sick of straight people making out in public and then throwing a fit when two gay people do the same thing and call it 'flaunting.' I'd like to see how straight people would fare if they had to stop 'flaunting it,' if they had to hide their orientation for fear of being insulted, assaulted, fired or killed. I don't think most of them could hack it; they're too used to their privelage. Their 'special rights,' if you want to be technical about it.

Being straight is normal, so of course ppl r going to assume ur straight. Thats like saying u c a person wearing a dress from a far distance away and u assume its a woman, Y? because its normal. Being gay is abnormal thus not expected.

And fankly im sick and tired of gay ppl complaining at all!!

Being straight is normal, so of course ppl r going to assume ur straight.

Being right-handed is normal, but I don't assume someone is right-handed until I see them eating/writing/etc. with their right hand.

And I certainly don't condemn them for it.

Being straight is normal, so of course ppl r going to assume ur straight. Thats like saying u c a person wearing a dress from a far distance away and u assume its a woman, Y? because its normal. Being gay is abnormal thus not expected.

And fankly im sick and tired of gay ppl complaining at all!!

I'm sick and tired of your idiocy. I'm sick and tired of you degrading the overall intelligence of this debate. When you have something interesting and intelligent to say, come back.

I'm sick and tired of your idiocy. I'm sick and tired of you degrading the overall intelligence of this debate. When you have something interesting and intelligent to say, come back.

Ditto to u. Im sick and tired of u, i don't do direct insults unlike u.

Originally Posted by Wyvern Knights
And u may say that the laws r stupid but they r still laws, and must b respected or changed, until they r changed u can and should b arrested for them.

Stupid laws need to be changed. Which is exactly what the gays and lesbians who want equal rights are trying to have done. Did you have a point?

Skaladora, do you suppose these guys who talk about "respecting the law even if it doesn't seem fair" have even heard of... I dunno... Martin Luther King? Or Nelson Mandella? Or Rosa Parks?

DeceptiCons-- clean the ig'nunt out of your ears and listen the hell up: "an unjust law is no law at all." St. Thomas Aquinas, your good buddy, the 'inventor' of the missionnary position, made that argument. Stupid, archaic, bigoted laws get written by stupid, archaic, bigoted people to oppress other people. And yes, they may be laws, passed by 99% or 75% or 50.01% of the people in power-- who can get there honestly or dishonestly-- but that doesn't make them just, and it doesn't make them right, and laws that don't promote justice have no MORAL weight and ought to be disobeyed. Slavery used to be written into the law. The oppression of women use to be written into the law. In retrospect, most intelligent people recognize that those were BAD, unjust laws, and that there was no good reason for people to follow them except the fear of unjust and immoral punishment. LOOK at history-- look at it or so help me, we'll rub your faces in it-- and then look at the state of things today, and then you explain how 10 or 20 or 50 years from now, people won't look back on homophobia and anti-gay bigotry and say "holy crap, that was stupid. They were so stupid! How did they not descend into cannibalism and rape-gangs?" And those who're such rah-rah fans of it, softcore or hard, will be regarded with embarrassment if not downright disgust. Prejudice is a *primitive* throwback, people! It's reflected in the barbarism perpetrated by the most prejudiced people in human history. Wake the fuck up.

Ditto to u. Im sick and tired of u, i don't do direct insults unlike u.

Yeah, I try not to, but with people like you I just can't help it.

While u say 20 years from now we will look back and say wow that was stupid. I say if gays get more rights in 100 years, we will look back, and say o there is where everything went downhill. However hopefully no further laws will b passed to support homosexuality.

And yes those ppl did go after immoral laws and whatnot. But u c, many ppl c theese laws as just, thus y appeal them. Sacrafice the few for the sake of the many.

While u say 20 years from now we will look back and say wow that was stupid. I say if gays get more rights in 100 years, we will look back, and say o there is where everything went downhill. However hopefully no further laws will b passed to support homosexuality.

And yes those ppl did go after immoral laws and whatnot. But u c, many ppl c theese laws as just, thus y appeal them. Sacrafice the few for the sake of the many.

No, sacrifice the however many for the sake of the just.

And everything went downhill a long time ago.

When will you straight people come to realize me marrying another man won't change anything. I'm still gonna have sex with him, I'm still gonna go out in public with him, get a house with him, a car with him, etc, etc. Nothing will change except that we'll finally be able to tell people we're married and have it be true. When you people finally realize that, the world will be a better place.

It seems like the thing people get hung up on the most is the gayness itself. I will henceforth discuss all manner of falsehoods, misconceptions, and outright stupidities coming form the anti-gay crowd.

The people who want to outlaw gay marriage and set homosexuals on fire tink gayness is icky and gross, and the gay person chose that lifestyle, and the gay person wants to turn other people gay, and the gay person wants to defecate on the altar and stick the crucifix up his ass, and that God somehow cares.

WRONG.

Gay people CANNOT chose to be gay. Simply, completely, utterly untrue. Think for a moment: why would ANY person choose to be someone that is reviled by a certai part of society, the subject of ridicule, and the target of bigots and scaremongers? Why would someone CHOOSE to be gay? It's not like a guy was walking home and suddenly stopped, thinking "You know? I think I'd like to fuck guys from now on." Doesn't work that way. Boys don't hit puberty and have to pick which gender they're attracted to, there is no "Choose Your Own Adventure" for sexual preference.

Gay people do not have magic powers that turn other people gay. If that were true, everyone in the world would be gay and there would be no discussion about it. Matthew Shepard wouldn't be dead if he could've turned his attackers gay.

There is no such thing a a "Gay agenda." If there is, it is simply a notebook where gay people put dates and calendars. And, if there is, it's the worst agenda in the world, even worse than the Internation Jewish Conspiracy, the Freemasons, and the Catholics. I mean, the Gay Agenda can't even keep laws off the books outlawing gay marriage! At least those other boys have some clout.

And finally, in a pluralistic society, it is ridiculous to assume that because one religion says something is bad, that is suddenly true for everyone. Gayness, as I said, does not spread like dandelions and mice, and doesn't really affect everonye. Two guys having sex in an apartment in New York doesn't cause car troubles for churchgoers in Kansas, somehow making gay people responsible for the "War on Christianity."

Now, we may discuss.


I agree with that last part about gayness not spreading etc. But almost nothing else. From a religious standpoint gay marriage should be outlawed, but from a purely political standpoint, which is what most people apparently think America was founded on even though thats not what the law says or means but thats a different debate, it shouldn't. I do believe that a person chooses to be gay, because I've seen no proof that they don't, if anyone has proof show me please.

I agree with that last part about gayness not spreading etc. But almost nothing else. From a religious standpoint gay marriage should be outlawed, but from a purely political standpoint, which is what most people apparently think America was founded on even though thats not what the law says or means but thats a different debate, it shouldn't. I do believe that a person chooses to be gay, because I've seen no proof that they don't, if anyone has proof show me please.

I can offer you no proof on that. Just as you cannot offer me proof that we do choose to be gay.

But I can provide logic. Why would I choose something this dangerous? I'm risking my life just saying I'm gay. (Matthew Shepard, college kid killed for being gay). Tell me why would I choose a life where half my family hates me for it and the other half denies it? Why would I choose a life where I could get fired from jobs, or not even hired to begin with for it, and there are few, if any laws to protect me? Can you give me one reason why any sane human would willingly choose this if they did not feel they had to?

I can offer you no proof on that. Just as you cannot offer me proof that we do choose to be gay.

But I can provide logic. Why would I choose something this dangerous? I'm risking my life just saying I'm gay. (Matthew Shepard, college kid killed for being gay). Tell me why would I choose a life where half my family hates me for it and the other half denies it? Why would I choose a life where I could get fired from jobs, or not even hired to begin with for it, and there are few, if any laws to protect me? Can you give me one reason why any sane human would willingly choose this if they did not feel they had to?

Um there crazy, as effedent by their sexual orientation. I think thats a pretty good reason valid or not.

Um there crazy, as effedent by their sexual orientation. I think thats a pretty good reason valid or not.

Notice I said sane person. Therefore invalidating your argument.

I can offer you no proof on that. Just as you cannot offer me proof that we do choose to be gay.

But I can provide logic. Why would I choose something this dangerous? I'm risking my life just saying I'm gay. (Matthew Shepard, college kid killed for being gay). Tell me why would I choose a life where half my family hates me for it and the other half denies it? Why would I choose a life where I could get fired from jobs, or not even hired to begin with for it, and there are few, if any laws to protect me? Can you give me one reason why any sane human would willingly choose this if they did not feel they had to?

That type of response to it in families doesn't happen as much as it used to, though it does sometimes. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Matthew Shepard killed a couple years ago? so the feelings about the lifestyle are different. And a sane human would choose the lifestyle because that's what they wanted(my belief), or they would live that way because they had no choice(your belief).

Being straight is normal, so of course ppl r going to assume ur straight. Thats like saying u c a person wearing a dress from a far distance away and u assume its a woman, Y? because its normal. Being gay is abnormal thus not expected.

And fankly im sick and tired of gay ppl complaining at all!!

"Frankly" you podunk! "People" not "ppl," "are" nor "r," "you're" not "ur," "that's" not "thats," "you" not "u," "see" not "c," "it's" not "its," "why" not "Y," and "I'm" not "im." If you want to talk with the grown-ups then learn to fucking communicate. If you can't make basic proper use of the language then the content of your argument doesn't even deserve consideration, because the deficiencies of the mind articulating it have already betrayed themselves.

And while I don't 'do' prayer, just this once I'm gonna give it a shot.

God, if you exist and you're listening, please, please, please arrange so that if Wyvern Knights has kids-- now, or in the future-- that every last one of them is homo. Let them be sheltered from anything gay so that it can't be blamed on 'gay influences,' and let them one and all, to the last, be natural-born little fags or dykes. And let them grow up to be happy and successful despite Wyvern's parenting, and then move on, leaving Wyvern to fade away alone and agonising over Wyvern's own ignorant folly. Set that one up, G-diddy, and I'll totally convert and be your bitch.

That type of response to it in families doesn't happen as much as it used to, though it does sometimes. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Matthew Shepard killed a couple years ago? so the feelings about the lifestyle are different. And a sane human would choose the lifestyle because that's what they wanted(my belief), or they would live that way because they had no choice(your belief).

The family thing happens everyday. It happens to me everyday. Don't even tell me it doesn't happen.

No, sacrifice the however many for the sake of the just.

And everything went downhill a long time ago.

When will you straight people come to realize me marrying another man won't change anything. I'm still gonna have sex with him, I'm still gonna go out in public with him, get a house with him, a car with him, etc, etc. Nothing will change except that we'll finally be able to tell people we're married and have it be true. When you people finally realize that, the world will be a better place.

Ill agree with the everything wen't downhill a long time ago, morals have been declining for a while now, atleast here in US.

But that is where u r wrong, it will change things. We don't care at all if u choose to do those things with a man we simply don't wan't to know about them. Ex public displays. However it would change the very deffinition of marriage, which the majority hold as a sacred union between a man and a woman, homosexual marriages breaks that sacred union(to heterosexuals). Honestly if u guys would just do the same thing but call it something else, Ex. Union of blah. Then a lot of things would b easier. However i stand firm on my support of every anti-gay protest, rally or w/e there has ever been. But for my cousin who is gay, non-violent pjrotests.

Notice I said sane person. Therefore invalidating your argument.

Um no sane person would only crazy ppl would.

"Frankly" you podunk! "People" not "ppl," "are" nor "r," "you're" not "ur," "that's" not "thats," "you" not "u," "see" not "c," "it's" not "its," "why" not "Y," and "I'm" not "im." If you want to talk with the grown-ups then learn to fucking communicate. If you can't make basic proper use of the language then the content of your argument doesn't even deserve consideration, because the deficiencies of the mind articulating it have already betrayed themselves.

And while I don't 'do' prayer, just this once I'm gonna give it a shot.

God, if you exist and you're listening, please, please, please arrange so that if Wyvern Knights has kids-- now, or in the future-- that every last one of them is homo. Let them be sheltered from anything gay so that it can't be blamed on 'gay influences,' and let them one and all, to the last, be natural-born little fags or dykes. And let them grow up to be happy and successful despite Wyvern's parenting, and then move on, leaving Wyvern to fade away alone and agonising over Wyvern's own ignorant folly. Set that one up, G-diddy, and I'll totally convert and be your bitch.

So that has to be the best thing ever.

And, it does happen. Happened to my mom. Except only half her kids are gay.

The family thing happens everyday. It happens to me everyday. Don't even tell me it doesn't happen.

I didn't mean it doesn't happen at all. I meant it doesn't happen as much. And that sucks about your family.

Um no sane person would only crazy ppl would.

Oh, so now you're calling me crazy? I'm completely sane, and a rather intelligent individual.

I didn't mean it doesn't happen at all. I meant it doesn't happen as much. And that sucks about your family.

Of all the gay/bi people I know, only one of them has every member of their family accept them and it.

And, to let you know how many people that is, I know more gay/bi people than I do straight people.

Which means it happens more than you think.

"Frankly" you podunk! "People" not "ppl," "are" nor "r," "you're" not "ur," "that's" not "thats," "you" not "u," "see" not "c," "it's" not "its," "why" not "Y," and "I'm" not "im." If you want to talk with the grown-ups then learn to fucking communicate. If you can't make basic proper use of the language then the content of your argument doesn't even deserve consideration, because the deficiencies of the mind articulating it have already betrayed themselves.

And while I don't 'do' prayer, just this once I'm gonna give it a shot.

God, if you exist and you're listening, please, please, please arrange so that if Wyvern Knights has kids-- now, or in the future-- that every last one of them is homo. Let them be sheltered from anything gay so that it can't be blamed on 'gay influences,' and let them one and all, to the last, be natural-born little fags or dykes. And let them grow up to be happy and successful despite Wyvern's parenting, and then move on, leaving Wyvern to fade away alone and agonising over Wyvern's own ignorant folly. Set that one up, G-diddy, and I'll totally convert and be your bitch.

Lol do u really think ur the 1st one to critizice my use of shorthand, frankly i don't care i have nothign to gain from using the long way so y should i?
Lol i doubted a gay person would pray.
And even so i have already considered the possiblity of gay children, and they would immeaditly b disowned, without hesistation, and guess what i wouldn't have a problem with disowning sum1 who chose a life of sin, no matter how agonising it is. But i pray for the good of the world ur kids r strait. O wait u can't have kids with ur partner forgot about that.

Oh, so now you're calling me crazy? I'm completely sane, and a rather intelligent individual.

I percieve u as crazy tho.

How many times-- and in how many languages-- does this have to be explained to people?? The average straight person doesn't need to proclaim their straightness, because they have the 'benefit' of people-- in general-- assuming that they are straight. They aren't invisible, they aren't repressed, they aren't afraid to be 'out' as straight because straight people don't get assaulted for being straight. Conversely the average straight guy wouldn't appreciate people assuming that he's gay, or treating him as they would treat a gay man, because that would be a denial of his actual identity-- which tends to feel pretty damned degrading. Well the feeling is no different for gay people. Except for those who are still in the closet because the fear or shame, most of us don't appreciate people assuming we're straight, because it amounts to a denial of our actual identities as gay people. But unlike being straight, a lot of gay people aren't 'assumed' to be as they actually are. They're mislabeled because straight people tend to take for granted that 'straight is good, straight is normal, everybody is (or ought to be) straight.' That assumption works to keep us invisible and repressed, and lets people feel okay with themselves when they harass or assault us. Try looking at it from another perspective-- that of the people you're marginalising. Gawd, I'm one of the least empathic people I know, I suck at appreciating others' points of view, but this is pretty basic stuff that's been explained many times.

You claim to take issue with straight people's public displays of affection too, but I don't buy it. Why? Because it's a fucking footnote by comparison. "I wish they'd keep it to themselves, I wish they'd stop 'flaunting' it, I wish they'd keep it behind closed doors. oh and it kinda bugs me when my fellow heteros do it, too." That doesn't cut it. Sauce for the goose. If you want to oppose 'inappropriate' public expression of sexuality regardless of orientation, then you have to poo-poo both equally. Frankly I'm sick of straight people making out in public and then throwing a fit when two gay people do the same thing and call it 'flaunting.' I'd like to see how straight people would fare if they had to stop 'flaunting it,' if they had to hide their orientation for fear of being insulted, assaulted, fired or killed. I don't think most of them could hack it; they're too used to their privelage. Their 'special rights,' if you want to be technical about it.




Frankly I'm sick of straight people making out in public and then throwing a fit when two gay people do the same thing and call it 'flaunting.'

You have no clue whether I am gay or straight by the sounds of it. Or are you only seeing what you choose to see... If I remember right "Militia" people are blinded to any side but their own


ALL people can show love to another person WITHOUT making a specticle of themselves, Whether that love be toward opposite or same sex,

I know many heterosexuals who "keep it under control" just as well as many of the homosexuals I know. There are some homosexuals AND heterosexuals who make things bad for everyone else. I am trying to say and seems that I may be either misunderstood or purposely answered by at least one ignorant person that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH SEXUAL ORIENTATION YOU ARE OF, KEEP IT CIVILIZED!!! I don't particularly like to see EITHER or ANY of the <u>extensive</u> shows of affection...

ANd btw I don't particually care whether you buy it or not .... I dont like ANYONE grabbing tit ass or dick and sticking their tongue down each others throats in public ... and yes I have said it publicily ..

I have decided that it is impossible to have a battle of wits with unarmed people!! :headbang:

I am done with you now .. However if you decide to say something intelligent, I will be more than happy to answer back ... til then enjoy your miltia.

Of all the gay/bi people I know, only one of them has every member of their family accept them and it.

And, to let you know how many people that is, I know more gay/bi people than I do straight people.

Which means it happens more than you think.

I also didn't mean that most families accept it completely. And I realize that it still happens quite a bit if not most of the time. I'll try to be more thorough in my explanations and such from now on. But there will pretty much always be at least one person per family that doen't agree.

Lol do u really think ur the 1st one to critizice my use of shorthand, frankly i don't care i have nothign to gain from using the long way so y should i?
Lol i doubted a gay person would pray.
And even so i have already considered the possiblity of gay children, and they would immeaditly b disowned, without hesistation, and guess what i wouldn't have a problem with disowning sum1 who chose a life of sin, no matter how agonising it is. But i pray for the good of the world ur kids r strait. O wait u can't have kids with ur partner forgot about that.

First off, you are a terrible person. You would honestly disown your kids for that? My jaw literally dropped when I read that. What kind of shit is that, that you say I'm going to hell for liking men, but you're not going to hell for being a complete asshole to your own flesh and blood? Something's wrong with your religion.

And, second, we can have kids very easily actually. We just get a good friend of ours who will agree to be a surrogate mother, then she has the kid for us. And yes that happens. My friend has agreed to be my surrogate mother when I decide I want a kid.

Lol do u really think ur the 1st one to critizice my use of shorthand, frankly i don't care i have nothign to gain from using the long way so y should i?
Lol i doubted a gay person would pray.
And even so i have already considered the possiblity of gay children, and they would immeaditly b disowned, without hesistation, and guess what i wouldn't have a problem with disowning sum1 who chose a life of sin, no matter how agonising it is. But i pray for the good of the world ur kids r strait. O wait u can't have kids with ur partner forgot about that.

From your remarks you're obviously a religious person of some sort I'm assuming Christian, tell me if I'm wrong. I'm also a Christian but maybe you should read your bible or whatever it is you live by because that is completely the wrong way to respond to that situation.

I percieve u as crazy tho.

You don't know me. You can't say whether I'm crazy or not.

Just like I percieve you as a blundering idiot who needs to be put in the crazy house, but I can't say for sure if that's true because I don't know you.

First off, you are a terrible person. You would honestly disown your kids for that? My jaw literally dropped when I read that. What kind of shit is that, that you say I'm going to hell for liking men, but you're not going to hell for being a complete asshole to your own flesh and blood? Something's wrong with your religion.

And, second, we can have kids very easily actually. We just get a good friend of ours who will agree to be a surrogate mother, then she has the kid for us. And yes that happens. My friend has agreed to be my surrogate mother when I decide I want a kid.

Yes im sure ur jaw did drop, but its not like i haven't thot about the subject b4 mainly when i found out my cousin was such, i knew my stance, nothing can change, that. And actually my religous beliefs don't matter as being gay alone would null any religous beliefs they should have. And lastly i believe sumwhere it says if they have wronged u and continue to wrong u, u can do as i will do.

However those kids won't b ur partner and your DNA combined, thus it would b ur kid, and it could b his kid, however they won't b Genetically ur kids.

Yes im sure ur jaw did drop, but its not like i haven't thot about the subject b4 mainly when i found out my cousin was such, i knew my stance, nothing can change, that. And actually my religous beliefs don't matter as being gay alone would null any religous beliefs they should have. And lastly i believe sumwhere it says if they have wronged u and continue to wrong u, u can do as i will do.

However those kids won't b ur partner and your DNA combined, thus it would b ur kid, and it could b his kid, however they won't b Genetically ur kids.

So? What's your point? They'll still be our kids. Whether by birth or not.

You don't know me. You can't say whether I'm crazy or not.

Just like I percieve you as a blundering idiot who needs to be put in the crazy house, but I can't say for sure if that's true because I don't know you.

This is true i don't know u, however. From what i do know about u, u seem like a crazy person.
And u can percieve me as w/e u wan't doesn't change what i am, infact ur perception of urself, may not actually b who u r.

So? What's your point? They'll still be our kids. Whether by birth or not.

It's just like a straight couple adopting a child.

So? What's your point? They'll still be our kids. Whether by birth or not.

Was just making a poke at u, and yes by the deffintion of parent, or w/e they will b ur kids. however genetically they won't b which was all i was saying. Just stating a fact. Unless they come up with radical genetic tech in the next decade or so.

This is true i don't know u, however. From what i do know about u, u seem like a crazy person.
And u can percieve me as w/e u wan't doesn't change what i am, infact ur perception of urself, may not actually b who u r.

I seem like a crazy person on what basis? That I'm gay? Just so you know, that hasn't been considered a mental disorder for well over 20 years now.

I seem like a crazy person on what basis? That I'm gay? Just so you know, that hasn't been considered a mental disorder for well over 20 years now.

Yes basically, from what i know about u which is basically ur gay, and i think ur male, mainly u because u act like it.

I percieve ur choice to b illogical, and but load of other stuff that i have already said. And also all the stuff that u added, so therefor it seems to b a horrible choice, and yes it is a choice.

Yes basically, from what i know about u which is basically ur gay, and i think ur male, mainly u because u act like it.

I percieve ur choice to b illogical, and but load of other stuff that i have already said. And also all the stuff that u added, so therefor it seems to b a horrible choice, and yes it is a choice.

I'm done arguing over whether it's a choice. I know for a fact that I did not choose this, and that's enough for me. If you want to continue with you very wrong point of view, that's no concern of mine.

And let me ask you this? Did you choose to be straight? Did you sit down one day and decide you were going to like women for the rest of your life? I'm guessing your answer is no. If you did not choose to be straight, what makes you think I chose to be gay?

I'm done arguing over whether it's a choice. I know for a fact that I did not choose this, and that's enough for me. If you want to continue with you very wrong point of view, that's no concern of mine.


That's become an agree to disagree point let's move to something else.

I'm done arguing over whether it's a choice. I know for a fact that I did not choose this, and that's enough for me. If you want to continue with you very wrong point of view, that's no concern of mine.

How could it not b a choice, all social, biologcal and the majority of psychological all tend toward being strait.

Of course i do not know ur life, however in my life, and the lives of the majority of ppl i know, have been that way, including the gay ones.

And let me ask you this? Did you choose to be straight? Did you sit down one day and decide you were going to like women for the rest of your life? I'm guessing your answer is no. If you did not choose to be straight, what makes you think I chose to be gay?


Good point. And good question.

I percieve u as crazy tho.
You certainly seem a lot more crazy than Haradwaich, Wyvern Knights. Why are you back? Come to get more of your bigoted posts torn to shreds by logic and rationality?

Lol do u really think ur the 1st one to critizice my use of shorthand, frankly i don't care i have nothign to gain from using the long way so y should i?
Lol i doubted a gay person would pray.
And even so i have already considered the possiblity of gay children, and they would immeaditly b disowned, without hesistation, and guess what i wouldn't have a problem with disowning sum1 who chose a life of sin, no matter how agonising it is. But i pray for the good of the world ur kids r strait. O wait u can't have kids with ur partner forgot about that.

Any parent who would disown their child, for something inherent that their child never chose for themselves, is an abominable parents and doesn't deserve to have kids in the first place. For even demonstrating the capacity to consider it, you ought to be chemically castrated. You seem to consider yourself a Christian, but I dare say Jesus-- whether he was divine or just a really admirable spiritual leader-- would be fucking *ashamed* of you.

Good point. And good question.

Always gets them too.

Sorry to bring it back up again, but could the sexual orientation of someone, whatever it is, have been "chosen" for them because of events in their life that affected them to a point that they were changed because of it. This is kind of a you choose thing and a kind of you don't shooe it thing.

Always gets them too.

Got me.

And let me ask you this? Did you choose to be straight? Did you sit down one day and decide you were going to like women for the rest of your life? I'm guessing your answer is no. If you did not choose to be straight, what makes you think I chose to be gay?

Did i choose to b strait, no all those factors, Social, enviormental, cultural, psychological, and biological all pointed to being strait, y would i divert from a path that which has been layed out b4, me by evolution(for u non-religous ppl) from the beggining of time.

What in the world, would drive sum1 to b gay, is beyond me. If there was a gay gene as u would have to claim it would b if u didn't choose it. By the laws of evolution it would b immeadetly gone at the end of that generation as it has now adaptive purpose.

Any parent who would disown their child, for something inherent that their child never chose for themselves, is an abominable parents and doesn't deserve to have kids in the first place. For even demonstrating the capacity to consider it, you ought to be chemically castrated. You seem to consider yourself a Christian, but I dare say Jesus-- whether he was divine or just a really admirable spiritual leader-- would be fucking *ashamed* of you.


The only problem with saying that to Wyvern is that he belives it's a choice.
And I agree witht the part about Jesus being ashamed/ apalled.

How could it not b a choice, all social, biologcal and the majority of psychological all tend toward being strait.

Of course i do not know ur life, however in my life, and the lives of the majority of ppl i know, have been that way, including the gay ones.
You're pulling that out of your ass. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence whatsoever pointing to the "being gay is a choice" theory. Far from it.

Did i choose to b strait, no all those factors, Social, enviormental, cultural, psychological, and biological all pointed to being strait, y would i divert from a path that which has been layed out b4, me by evolution(for u non-religous ppl) from the beggining of time.

What in the world, would drive sum1 to b gay, is beyond me. If there was a gay gene as u would have to claim it would b if u didn't choose it. By the laws of evolution it would b immeadetly gone at the end of that generation as it has now adaptive purpose.

Someone said it's natures way of population control, seeing as gay couples can't reproduce together. Which puts a hole in your evolution theory.

Any parent who would disown their child, for something inherent that their child never chose for themselves, is an abominable parents and doesn't deserve to have kids in the first place. For even demonstrating the capacity to consider it, you ought to be chemically castrated. You seem to consider yourself a Christian, but I dare say Jesus-- whether he was divine or just a really admirable spiritual leader-- would be fucking *ashamed* of you.

If a child chose to b an abomination, then i would have already failed, disowning a son/daughter who chose such a life of sin, and abomination is only logical, i simply couldn't have such sin in a family life no matter what the circumstances.

Dude, this thread is so gay :p
Sry, I had to do that.

Did i choose to b strait, no all those factors, Social, enviormental, cultural, psychological, and biological all pointed to being strait, y would i divert from a path that which has been layed out b4, me by evolution(for u non-religous ppl) from the beggining of time.

What in the world, would drive sum1 to b gay, is beyond me. If there was a gay gene as u would have to claim it would b if u didn't choose it. By the laws of evolution it would b immeadetly gone at the end of that generation as it has now adaptive purpose.

Enviromental, psychological, and biolgical, even social and cultural reasons are different for every person. So maybe they directed you to be a heterosexual. But that's not the case for everyone. And we had to start somewhere. Somewhere there had to be someone who had never come into contact with homosexuality who knew they were gay, who knew they were different.

You know, it's easy for you to sit and say it's a choice and we're going to hell, blah blah, but you haven't walked a mile in our shoes. You don't know what it's like to be gay. To live in fear, rejection, etc.

Sorry to bring it back up again, but could the sexual orientation of someone, whatever it is, have been "chosen" for them because of events in their life that affected them to a point that they were changed because of it. This is kind of a you choose thing and a kind of you don't shooe it thing.
Sexual orientation is not a choice. Nobody wakes up one day and chooses to be gay. Nobody wakes up one day and chooses to be straight.

Just like nobody wakes up one day and decides to like red. And nobody wakes up one day and decides to like green. Preferences and tastes aren't choices.

If a child chose to b an abomination, then i would have already failed, disowning a son/daughter who chose such a life of sin, and abomination is only logical, i simply couldn't have such sin in a family life no matter what the circumstances.


You apprently didn't read my response to this earlier. But disowning is the completely wrong response to your child choosing to be gay.

You're pulling that out of your ass. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence whatsoever pointing to the "being gay is a choice" theory. Far from it.

So ur going after Biological because the others r a given. The fact that evolution would weed out any gays due to the inability to reproduce would b point one. The fact that male, and female bodies, interact in the way to produce offspring would b number 2.

If a child chose to b an abomination, then i would have already failed, disowning a son/daughter who chose such a life of sin, and abomination is only logical, i simply couldn't have such sin in a family life no matter what the circumstances.

So pretty much you're a failure at life. So do us a favor and kill yourself now, before you fuck up anything else.

Did i choose to b strait, no all those factors, Social, enviormental, cultural, psychological, and biological all pointed to being strait, y would i divert from a path that which has been layed out b4, me by evolution(for u non-religous ppl) from the beggining of time.

What in the world, would drive sum1 to b gay, is beyond me. If there was a gay gene as u would have to claim it would b if u didn't choose it. By the laws of evolution it would b immeadetly gone at the end of that generation as it has now adaptive purpose.
Your grasp of genetics is even poorer than your grasp of correct grammar. Congratulations. Go read a biology book, and stop making things up as you go.

Enviromental, psychological, and biolgical, even social and cultural reasons are different for every person. So maybe they directed you to be a heterosexual. But that's not the case for everyone. And we had to start somewhere. Somewhere there had to be someone who had never come into contact with homosexuality who knew they were gay, who knew they were different.

You know, it's easy for you to sit and say it's a choice and we're going to hell, blah blah, but you haven't walked a mile in our shoes. You don't know what it's like to be gay. To live in fear, rejection, etc.

I c well in that case if u really feel that strongly about the only reason i can say and feel the way i do, is because i don't know what its like yada yada.

Give me ur shoes.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Nobody wakes up one day and chooses to be gay. Nobody wakes up one day and chooses to be straight.

Just like nobody wakes up one day and decides to like red. And nobody wakes up one day and decides to like green. Preferences and tastes aren't choices.

I see your point and that's what I said about the events in someones life thing.

So pretty much you're a failure at life. So do us a favor and kill yourself now, before you fuck up anything else.

If my kids r strait then i wouldn't have been a failure, u however have failed urself, and ur parents.

I c well in that case if u really feel that strongly about the only reason i can say and feel the way i do, is because i don't know what its like yada yada.

Give me ur shoes.


Am I hallucinating or did he just say he wanted to be gay?

Someone said it's natures way of population control, seeing as gay couples can't reproduce together. Which puts a hole in your evolution theory.

Gay couples can't reproduce, but a homosexual male is still fertile. Social pressures may drive a person to repress his or her preference and adopt a heterosexual lifestyle, and I have seen cases of men with families, including children, who later confessed to homosexual relationships on the side.

Also, homosexual couples can still raise and care for children whose parents are dead or engaged in other business necessary to the survival of the group. This follows from a theory of human evolution that emphasizes the social aspect of human history and the survival benefits of cooperation.

I c well in that case if u really feel that strongly about the only reason i can say and feel the way i do, is because i don't know what its like yada yada.

Give me ur shoes.

Ok, come down here, we'll put you in my school, deck you out in rainbows and the like and send you to my school as a gay kid. Then you'll get to see about 10% of what it's like to be gay.

Did i choose to b strait, no all those factors, Social, enviormental, cultural, psychological, and biological all pointed to being strait, y would i divert from a path that which has been layed out b4, me by evolution(for u non-religous ppl) from the beggining of time.

What in the world, would drive sum1 to b gay, is beyond me. If there was a gay gene as u would have to claim it would b if u didn't choose it. By the laws of evolution it would b immeadetly gone at the end of that generation as it has now adaptive purpose.

And though it's been said many times before: if you don't understand evolution-- or the science of biology, for that matter-- then you don't get to use it. Evolution isn't orderly. Evolution isn't methodical. Evolution is about random variation. For instance: two straight parents produce baby. As a result of natural, random variation, that baby is biologically wired to be gay. Baby grows up and is *less likely* to procreate and pass on any kind of 'first-hand gay gene.' That is evolution at work. Evolution doesn't *exclude* variation, dumbass, it depends on it. Furthermore, don't get into a genetics argument until you grasp the concept of recessive genetic traits. Read a fucking book before you try and back up your position with evidence that you clearly don't understand.

You apprently didn't read my response to this earlier. But disowning is the completely wrong response to your child choosing to be gay.

Wrong is a relative term. So to me it is rite and being gay is Wrong. And yes i read it but u didn't provide anything to support, it do i ignored it because the only thing i would have said would b no im rite.

If my kids r strait then i wouldn't have been a failure, u however have failed urself, and ur parents.

It's really sad you measure success in life by something as arbitrary as sexuality.

If my kids r strait then i wouldn't have been a failure, u however have failed urself, and ur parents.

Excuse me, I have failed no one, or anything.

Am I hallucinating or did he just say he wanted to be gay?

U hallucinated, i didn't say anthing about being gay, or interaction on such a level. I was talking about experincing the resentmint, outcast, etc.

Gay couples can't reproduce, but a homosexual male is still fertile. Social pressures may drive a person to repress his or her preference and adopt a heterosexual lifestyle, and I have seen cases of men with families, including children, who later confessed to homosexual relationships on the side.

Also, homosexual couples can still raise and care for children whose parents are dead or engaged in other business necessary to the survival of the group. This follows from a theory of human evolution that emphasizes the social aspect of human history and the survival benefits of cooperation.


I know they can do all those things. I was only restating what someone else said for Wyverns benefit.

Excuse me, I have failed no one, or anything.

If u can judge me as a failure then i can certainly return the favor.

U hallucinated, i didn't say anthing about being gay, or interaction on such a level. I was talking about experincing the resentmint, outcast, etc.


You said you wanted to have his shoes, which would imply that you wanted to experience everything he does whic means being gay and the resentment and ridicule because of that.

So ur going after Biological because the others r a given. The fact that evolution would weed out any gays due to the inability to reproduce would b point one. The fact that male, and female bodies, interact in the way to produce offspring would b number 2.
I AM referring to evolution, you dim-witted fool. You obviously fail to grasp the mechanisms of recessive genes, AND willingly ignore the fact that one need not to express a trait to pass it on to offsprings. Furthermore, being gay does not make one sterile, and many gays and lesbian still have children regardless.

Go to school already. What grade are you in, pup?

If u can judge me as a failure then i can certainly return the favor.

You are a failure. Trust me on this one.

And though it's been said many times before: if you don't understand evolution-- or the science of biology, for that matter-- then you don't get to use it. Evolution isn't orderly. Evolution isn't methodical. Evolution is about random variation. For instance: two straight parents produce baby. As a result of natural, random variation, that baby is biologically wired to be gay. Baby grows up and is *less likely* to procreate and pass on any kind of 'first-hand gay gene.' That is evolution at work. Evolution doesn't *exclude* variation, dumbass, it depends on it. Furthermore, don't get into a genetics argument until you grasp the concept of recessive genetic traits. Read a fucking book before you try and back up your position with evidence that you clearly don't understand.

Ok now if the gay gene would of course not b able to pro-create as it can't produce off-spring with other gay organsims then the gene for that particular thing would die off. Relying solely on mutation, and varaition to explain all the gay ppl is imppossible, especially considering the genes closest to the gay gene would aslo b weeded out.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Nobody wakes up one day and chooses to be gay. Nobody wakes up one day and chooses to be straight.

Just like nobody wakes up one day and decides to like red. And nobody wakes up one day and decides to like green. Preferences and tastes aren't choices.


pref·er·ence [ préffərənss ] (plural pref·er·enc·es)


noun

Definition:

1. selection of somebody or something: the view that one person, object, or course of action is more desirable than another, or a choice based on such a view
The judges showed a marked preference for representational art.


2. right to express choice: the right or opportunity to choose a person, object, or course of action that is considered more desirable than another
We exercised our preference.



3. somebody or something preferred: a person, object, or course of action that is more desirable than another, or the state of being that desirable choice
State your preferences clearly.


4. law priority of one creditor over others: priority given to a creditor, e.g. when a debtor goes bankrupt, or the right of one creditor to receive payment before others


5. commerce favoritism in international trade: priority given to a particular country or group of countries in international trade


Sorry. Had to be done.

Wrong is a relative term. So to me it is rite and being gay is Wrong. And yes i read it but u didn't provide anything to support, it do i ignored it because the only thing i would have said would b no im rite.


Read your Bible and you'll understand that you shouldn't ridicule or exile someone immediately because of one sin. Look at Jesus with the adulterous woman, or do you believe He should have let her be stoned. If you were correct then Jesus coming was pointless and we're all going to hell. As it is you're wrong so we aren't all goin to hell.

You are a failure. Trust me on this one.

No my fellow forum user u r the failure, u can trust 2billion christains, that will say u r an abomination to God, on this one.

pref·er·ence [ préffərənss ] (plural pref·er·enc·es)


noun

Definition:

1. selection of somebody or something: the view that one person, object, or course of action is more desirable than another, or a choice based on such a view
The judges showed a marked preference for representational art.


2. right to express choice: the right or opportunity to choose a person, object, or course of action that is considered more desirable than another
We exercised our preference.



3. somebody or something preferred: a person, object, or course of action that is more desirable than another, or the state of being that desirable choice
State your preferences clearly.


4. law priority of one creditor over others: priority given to a creditor, e.g. when a debtor goes bankrupt, or the right of one creditor to receive payment before others


5. commerce favoritism in international trade: priority given to a particular country or group of countries in international trade


Sorry. Had to be done.

Which is why we use the word ORIENTATION.

No my fellow forum user u r the failure, u can trust 2billion christains, that will say u r an abomination to God, on this one.

Wrong again, he would not be an abomination his lifestyle would be. READ YOUR BIBLE and learn about your religion before you use it to justify anything.

Read your Bible and you'll understand that you shouldn't ridicule or exile someone immediately because of one sin. Look at Jesus with the adulterous woman, or do you believe He should have let her be stoned. If you were correct then Jesus coming was pointless and we're all going to hell. As it is you're wrong so we aren't all goin to hell.

There r diffrences there which u don't c. That person commited a sin, and sought forgiveness, and was forgiven.
A homo-sexual continuoulsy commits sin and doesn't seek forgiveness.

There r diffrences there which u don't c. That person commited a sin, and sought forgiveness, and was forgiven.
A homo-sexual continuoulsy commits sin and doesn't seek forgiveness.


Incorrect where does it say that the woman was asking forgiveness. All it says is that Jesus stopped the men.

Wrong again, he would not be an abomination his lifestyle would be. READ YOUR BIBLE and learn about your religion before you use it to justify anything.

He chose his lifestyle, and chose to b gay, which homo-sexuality is an abomination, thus if he chose to b it, then he would have choses to b an abomination.

No my fellow forum user u r the failure, u can trust 2billion christains, that will say u r an abomination to God, on this one.

I am not a Christian.
God is dead. I do not follow the rules of a bigotrous god.
In the name of your "God" the Crusades were commited. In the name of your "God" the Inquisition was commited. Jim Jones conviced thousands of people to commit suicide in the name of your "God."
Give me one reason why I should trust such a "God."

There r diffrences there which u don't c. That person commited a sin, and sought forgiveness, and was forgiven.
A homo-sexual continuoulsy commits sin and doesn't seek forgiveness.

Neither does an atheist, but they aren't regarded as abominations or denied rights. Nothing in the Bible commands you to discrimniate in this world against sinners, even the worst ones. You're simply supposed to help them find God.

Incorrect where does it say that the woman was asking forgiveness. All it says is that Jesus stopped the men.

Hmm i haven't read the story in a while, u have a point there, maybe i am wrong on that part, and can't remember the whole of the story. I shall have to go back and dbl check that.

He chose his lifestyle, and chose to b gay, which homo-sexuality is an abomination, thus if he chose to b it, then he would have choses to b an abomination.

He is still not the abomination, the lifestyle is. "Hate the sin not the sinner"

I am not a Christian.
God is dead. I do not follow the rules of a bigotrous god.
In the name of your "God" the Crusades were commited. In the name of your "God" the Inquisition was commited. Jim Jones conviced thousands of people to commit suicide in the name of your "God."
Give me one reason why I should trust such a "God."

I don't really care if u care about my God. However i do so whats ur point?

Tell me, Wyvern, were it up to you, would Christianity be the only religion allowed? If so, America would not even exist, the majority of our founding fathers were not Christians, they were Deists. In fact, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (i think that's who it was) often went to parties where the Christian faith was ridiculed and illicit sex occured. So now tell me you want our country only Christian.

I am not a Christian.
God is dead. I do not follow the rules of a bigotrous god.
In the name of your "God" the Crusades were commited. In the name of your "God" the Inquisition was commited. Jim Jones conviced thousands of people to commit suicide in the name of your "God."
Give me one reason why I should trust such a "God."


I see your point with all those situations, but God's name was used to justify something that was completely wrong, the crusades were wrong, Jim Jones was crazy, and the Inquisition was wrong. In conclusion I believe that all of those things atrocities committed by people who used the name of God and the Church to do what they wanted to.

Neither does an atheist, but they aren't regarded as abominations or denied rights. Nothing in the Bible commands you to discrimniate in this world against sinners, even the worst ones. You're simply supposed to help them find God.


I agree completely.

I don't really care if u care about my God. However i do so whats ur point?

I'm just informing you of some of the terrible atrocities commited in the name of your "God."
And that's another point where you contradict your own religion, you're supposed to care if I care. You're supposed to show me compassion, which you haven't. As an FYI, I'm more against Christianity after talking to you than I was before I talked to you. So you're doing the opposite of what you're supposed to be doing.

I see your point with all those situations, but God's name was used to justify something that was completely wrong, the crusades were wrong, Jim Jones was crazy, and the Inquisition was wrong. In conclusion I believe that all of those things atrocities committed by people who used the name of God and the Church to do what they wanted to.

I know they were wrong, that was my point.

Tell me, Wyvern, were it up to you, would Christianity be the only religion allowed? If so, America would not even exist, the majority of our founding fathers were not Christians, they were Deists. In fact, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (i think that's who it was) often went to parties where the Christian faith was ridiculed and illicit sex occured. So now tell me you want our country only Christian.

That is interesting and i would have to do some research to validate it. However they majority of the ppl were Christians. And if it wasn't for Christianity we wouldn't exist either.
And no of course it wouldn't b the only religion. Because then there wouldn't b all the cool gods to learn about the mythology.

He chose his lifestyle, and chose to b gay, which homo-sexuality is an abomination, thus if he chose to b it, then he would have choses to b an abomination.

Hmmmm how do animals choose to be an abomination?

That is interesting and i would have to do some research to validate it. However they majority of the ppl were Christians. And if it wasn't for Christianity we wouldn't exist either.
And no of course it wouldn't b the only religion. Because then there wouldn't b all the cool gods to learn about the mythology.

The majority of the people who wrote the Constitution were not Christians, they were Deists. Mainstream society would have you believe they were, but they weren't.

I'm just informing you of some of the terrible atrocities commited in the name of your "God."
And that's another point where you contradict your own religion, you're supposed to care if I care. You're supposed to show me compassion, which you haven't. As an FYI, I'm more against Christianity after talking to you than I was before I talked to you. So you're doing the opposite of what you're supposed to be doing.


I ask that you please don't judge all of us, Christians that is, by the attitude and actions of one. But I do understand your point and you have a very valid reason for your belief.

I see your point with all those situations, but God's name was used to justify something that was completely wrong, the crusades were wrong, Jim Jones was crazy, and the Inquisition was wrong. In conclusion I believe that all of those things atrocities committed by people who used the name of God and the Church to do what they wanted to.

And Islamic terrorist, do things in the name of Allah, however i have no ill feeling toward Islamic followers, after all it was just what he was taught. Im sure if all u were taught since u were born, is go and die for ur religion and u will have glory in heaven, when the oppurtunity presented itself they would do it without hesistation.

Hmmmm how do animals choose to be an abomination?

They don't they don't pocess, the mind power to 'Know' what an abomination is.

I ask that you please don't judge all of us, Christians that is, by the attitude and actions of one. But I do understand your point and you have a very valid reason for your belief.


Those aren't the only reasons I dislike Christianity. Actually, those aren't even the main reasons.
The main reason is simply your doctrine. It makes no sense to me at all. Much of it is contradictory. That's why I dislike Christianity.

That is interesting and i would have to do some research to validate it. However they majority of the ppl were Christians. And if it wasn't for Christianity we wouldn't exist either.
And no of course it wouldn't b the only religion. Because then there wouldn't b all the cool gods to learn about the mythology.


It wasn't Christianity that led to the founding of this country it was freedom of religion in general. And yes many of them were Desists not Christians. Have you never taken a history class in high school.

The majority of the people who wrote the Constitution were not Christians, they were Deists. Mainstream society would have you believe they were, but they weren't.

This matters not in the end, the country wouldn't exist, without Christians, and it would merely b diffrent if Christanity was the only religion.

This matters not in the end, the country wouldn't exist, without Christians, and it would merely b diffrent if Christanity was the only religion.

How would the US not exist without Christianity? Considering most of them were Deists anyways.

It wasn't Christianity that led to the founding of this country it was freedom of religion in general. And yes many of them were Desists not Christians. Have you never taken a history class in high school.

Ok lets c many were Christians who wished to practice it their way rather then the offical way. Then there were the Christians who forced the Desists to wan't religous freedom. Guess what it still works out the same, i won't even mention the prior 1500 years that would b diffrent.

Those aren't the only reasons I dislike Christianity. Actually, those aren't even the main reasons.
The main reason is simply your doctrine. It makes no sense to me at all. Much of it is contradictory. That's why I dislike Christianity.


Many people see contradictions in Chrisianity, I'm not one of them. Although I try not to take all my beliefs from the doctrine of a sect of Christianity but from what I believe is where we're supposed to get it, the Bible. But yes many doctrines of many sects of Christianity are contrary to what the Bible says.

Ok lets c many were Christians who wished to practice it their way rather then the offical way. Then there were the Christians who forced the Desists to wan't religous freedom. Guess what it still works out the same, i won't even mention the prior 1500 years that would b diffrent.

Do you even know what a Deist is?

Many people see contradictions in Chrisianity, I'm not one of them. Although I try not to take all my beliefs from the doctrine of a sect of Christianity but from what I believe is where we're supposed to get it, the Bible. But yes many doctrines of many sects of Christianity are contrary to what the Bible says.

No, the Bible contradicts itself.

Ok now if the gay gene would of course not b able to pro-create as it can't produce off-spring with other gay organsims then the gene for that particular thing would die off. Relying solely on mutation, and varaition to explain all the gay ppl is imppossible, especially considering the genes closest to the gay gene would aslo b weeded out.

Newsflash: gay men can still knock up women, and lesbians can still get knocked up by men. The fact that we don't desire sex with opposite-sex partners doesn't mean we're sterile. And, once again, shut up about genetics until you understand recessive traits. Because you aren't qualified to invoke biology if you don't know how it works. Unplug the XBox and go finish up a high school biology class, then if you still want to come back and say stupid things, you'll at least be able to do with without abusing science in the process.

And Islamic terrorist, do things in the name of Allah, however i have no ill feeling toward Islamic followers, after all it was just what he was taught. Im sure if all u were taught since u were born, is go and die for ur religion and u will have glory in heaven, when the oppurtunity presented itself they would do it without hesistation.


Yes I see your point. But if any of those involved in the crusades, inquisition, jim jones thing, etc. were taught to believe that they were supposed to do those thing I believe they were mislead.

They don't they don't pocess, the mind power to 'Know' what an abomination is.

Then how do you explain homosexual acts in the animal kingdom?

No, the Bible contradicts itself.


Do you have any proof of that besides what many people say, or how some Chrisitians act? If you do please show where it contradicts itself.

Do you even know what a Deist is?

Not really. Doesn't change my argument any, for all i care Deist could b Islamic radicals wouldn't change the valid points of my argument.

"Won`t change their minds, and can`t change the subject."

Verrily, a definition of "fanatic" that seems to swing both ways with ease. :)

Not really. Doesn't change my argument any, for all i care Deist could b Islamic radicals wouldn't change the valid points of my argument.

Yes it does matter.

Do you have any proof of that besides what many people say, or how some Chrisitians act? If you do please show where it contradicts itself.
No I can't think of any specific cases, but I used to be like a hardcore christian, so I do know its there.

Not really. Doesn't change my argument any, for all i care Deist could b Islamic radicals wouldn't change the valid points of my argument.

I agree that it does matter and whic points of your argument are valid?

I agree that it does matter and whic points of your argument are valid?
Yeah, I've yet to see any valid points, other than your religion.

Yes I see your point. But if any of those involved in the crusades, inquisition, jim jones thing, etc. were taught to believe that they were supposed to do those thing I believe they were mislead.

Yes i understand but any1 can b taught to do anything from the time they r young. Just as a strait person can learn to b gay.

No I can't think of any specific cases, but I used to be like a hardcore christian, so I do know its there.

Are you sure it was the Bible and not the way it was presented to you?

Yes i understand but any1 can b taught to do anything from the time they r young. Just as a strait person can learn to b gay.

Then will you teach me to be straight??!!?!?!

Not really. Doesn't change my argument any, for all i care Deist could b Islamic radicals wouldn't change the valid points of my argument.

Wow.

Are you sure it was the Bible and not the way it was presented to you?

Yes I'm sure.

Yes I'm sure.

And if I owned a Bible I would prove it.

I agree that it does matter and whic points of your argument are valid?

The USA wouldn't b here if it wasn't for Christanity. 1st off 2000 years of history would b diffrent but ill just hit a few highlights.
Crusades, brought spices, encourged exploration, Religous persecution, ppl left for new world, tried to convert indians.
Just a few highlights for u.

Then will you teach me to be straight??!!?!?!

Electro shock might work!

Here is a picture of Johnny Depp and here is one of Scarlett Johannson

*Finger on button*

Choose!

:p

Yes I'm sure.


Ok. I've never seen a contradiction but I haven't studied the entire thing but I do believe that I wouldn't find any if I read it front to back. But I have seen where it seems like it. I just don't see it, but you and others do.

The USA wouldn't b here if it wasn't for Christanity. 1st off 2000 years of history would b diffrent but ill just hit a few highlights.
Crusades, brought spices, encourged exploration, Religous persecution, ppl left for new world, tried to convert indians.
Just a few highlights for u.
The Crusades didn't bring back spices. The Crusades were an attempt to regain the "Holy Land" from the people inhabiting it.

The USA wouldn't b here if it wasn't for Christanity.

Actually it happened without Christianity. Here is a hint. The Pilgrims weren't here first and they weren't Christian.

1st off 2000 years of history would b diffrent but ill just hit a few highlights. Crusades, brought spices, encourged exploration, Religous persecution, ppl left for new world, tried to convert indians.
Just a few highlights for u.

Wow. And who said the education system in the US was in trouble!

pref·er·ence [ préffərənss ] (plural pref·er·enc·es)


noun

Definition:

1. selection of somebody or something: the view that one person, object, or course of action is more desirable than another, or a choice based on such a view
The judges showed a marked preference for representational art.


2. right to express choice: the right or opportunity to choose a person, object, or course of action that is considered more desirable than another
We exercised our preference.



3. somebody or something preferred: a person, object, or course of action that is more desirable than another, or the state of being that desirable choice
State your preferences clearly.


4. law priority of one creditor over others: priority given to a creditor, e.g. when a debtor goes bankrupt, or the right of one creditor to receive payment before others


5. commerce favoritism in international trade: priority given to a particular country or group of countries in international trade


Sorry. Had to be done.
So explain to me when exactly when you decided the gender you are attracted to.

And explain to me when exactly you chose your favorite color. And your favorite dish. And your favorite animal. And so on.

Could it be *gasp* that I used the word with meaning number 3, that doesn't involve choice?

Please don't show intellectual dishonesty.

The USA wouldn't b here if it wasn't for Christanity. 1st off 2000 years of history would b diffrent but ill just hit a few highlights.
Crusades, brought spices, encourged exploration, Religous persecution, ppl left for new world, tried to convert indians.
Just a few highlights for u.


Yes that makes your entire arguent valid. Except there was religious persecution before Christianity which means that it would have been there anyway. And people have been exploring since the beginning so that would have happened without the crusades. And What do the indians have to do with anything?

Then will you teach me to be straight??!!?!?!

Ok use a technique that is used on pedophiles. Get a therapist, and tell them what u wish to do. Thru certain Aversian therapy for homosexuality. A basic version of this would b to show pictures of Men and then pair it with a strong electric shock.

Black Forrest is right. Weren't the first people here, besides the indians, the vikings?

Ok. I've never seen a contradiction but I haven't studied the entire thing but I do believe that I wouldn't find any if I read it front to back. But I have seen where it seems like it. I just don't see it, but you and others do.

I can send you a list via telegram, or you could do a search using Bible and contradiction in any search engine. There are a few sites that have dozens of examples, though I find some suspect. Here's two verses you can check in a Bible: Matt. 1:16 and Luke 3:23. They present contradictory accounts of Joseph's parentage, important information considering the Messiah was to be descended from David and the lineage through Joseph was presented as proof.

The Crusades didn't bring back spices. The Crusades were an attempt to regain the "Holy Land" from the people inhabiting it.

Well he is telling a 1/2 truth.

They did bring back the stuff they stole.

I wonder what he would say about the Christians who lived under the Turkish Rule said it was better as there was less corruption.....

Ok use a technique that is used on pedophiles. Get a therapist, and tell them what u wish to do. Thru certain Aversian therapy for homosexuality. A basic version of this would b to show pictures of Men and then pair it with a strong electric shock.


Yes let's hurt people to make them do what we want. That's not the Christian thing to do nor is it the right thing to do.

So explain to me when exactly when you decided the gender you are attracted to.

And explain to me when exactly you chose your favorite color. And your favorite dish. And your favorite animal. And so on.

Could it be *gasp* that I used the word with meaning number 3, that doesn't involve choice?

Please don't show intellectual dishonesty.

Probably thru Identification and/or Introjection.

Ok use a technique that is used on pedophiles. Get a therapist, and tell them what u wish to do. Thru certain Aversian therapy for homosexuality. A basic version of this would b to show pictures of Men and then pair it with a strong electric shock.

All that that is going to do is stop my reaction to men. It won't change the fact that I like them.

Ok use a technique that is used on pedophiles. Get a therapist, and tell them what u wish to do. Thru certain Aversian therapy for homosexuality. A basic version of this would b to show pictures of Men and then pair it with a strong electric shock.

All that does is teach suppression of urges, not change the desire. This is behavior modification, not modification of sexuality, much less an extremely painful and undignified procedure.

Yes let's hurt people to make them do what we want. That's not the Christian thing to do nor is it the right thing to do.

Um thats not hurting u, its a real thereapy, that has been used on pedophiles.

From a religious standpoint gay marriage should be outlawed,

Not based on my religion.

but from a purely political standpoint, which is what most people apparently think America was founded on even though thats not what the law says or means but thats a different debate, it shouldn't.

Religious marriage and legal marriage are not the same thing. Why should one particular religion rule over legal marriage?

I do believe that a person chooses to be gay, because I've seen no proof that they don't, if anyone has proof show me please.

Did you choose your sexuality? At what point did the sexuality fairy come to you and give you the choice of whether to be attracted to men or women? Why did you choose what you chose?

Or are you like every other human being - you just found yourself attracted to a given set of people, without choosing anything?

If you say that homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality and bisexuality are also choices. Thus, your own sexuality was a choice. When did you make that choice?

Meanwhile, do you think that animals other than humans often make conscious choices? Are you aware of the occurrence of homo- and bisexuality throughout much of the animal kingdom, especially in mammals and birds?

All that does is teach suppression of urges, not change the desire. This is behavior modification, not modification of sexuality, much less an extremely painful and undignified procedure.

That's exactly what I was trying to say above that, you just said it better.

All that that is going to do is stop my reaction to men. It won't change the fact that I like them.

And y do u like them, becuse of ur reaction to them?

Black Forrest is right. Weren't the first people here, besides the indians, the vikings?

Jamestown was running for 13 years or so before the Pilgrims. They were not a quasi-theocratic bunch like the Pilgrims.

He probably bought into the myth of the search for Religious Freedom that our schools used to teach.....

And y do u like them, becuse of ur reaction to them?

No, my reaction occurs because I like them, not the other way around.

I can send you a list via telegram, or you could do a search using Bible and contradiction in any search engine. There are a few sites that have dozens of examples, though I find some suspect. Here's two verses you can check in a Bible: Matt. 1:16 and Luke 3:23. They present contradictory accounts of Joseph's parentage, important information considering the Messiah was to be descended from David and the lineage through Joseph was presented as proof.


Matt. 1:16 " Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3:23 " Jesus was known as the son of Joseph"

Just because Jesus was known as the son of Joseph does not mean He was or that the verses are contradictory.

Um thats not hurting u, its a real thereapy, that has been used on pedophiles.
And there is no valid reason whatsoever to use it on gays. All such a therapy does is teach someone to repress hi desires.

The reason we use it on pedophiles is because when pedophiles act on their desires, a child is hurt.

When a gay man acts on his desires, no one is hurt.

Stop comparing the two. There is nothing alike between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Matt. 1:16 " Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3:23 " Jesus was known as the son of Joseph"

Just because Jesus was known as the son of Joseph does not mean He was or that the verses are contradictory.

If he was known as his son, that's saying he is his son. I'm known as my father's son.

Um thats not hurting u, its a real thereapy, that has been used on pedophiles.


An electric shock doesn't physically hurt you?

Matt. 1:16 " Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3:23 " Jesus was known as the son of Joseph"

Just because Jesus was known as the son of Joseph does not mean He was or that the verses are contradictory.

Luke 3:23 (continued in NIV version) "...Joseph, the son of Heli"

Take it compared to the other verse, and you can see the contradiction.

There needs to be an intelligence test to get on these forums.

And y do u like them, becuse of ur reaction to them?
No. He likes men because he feels attracted to them and falls in love with them.

His reactions and body responses are a consequence of his desire, not the source.

And there is no valid reason whatsoever to use it on gays. All such a therapy does is teach someone to repress hi desires.

The reason we use it on pedophiles is because when pedophiles act on their desires, a child is hurt.

When a gay man acts on his desires, no one is hurt.

Stop comparing the two. There is nothing alike between homosexuality and pedophilia.

He asked to b taught to b strait, the 1st step would have been to unlearn the gay habbits.

If he was known as his son, that's saying he is his son. I'm known as my father's son.


He was known as Joseph's son. But if someone is adopted are they not known as the adoptive parents' son? But they really are not.

Black Forrest if it's not too much trouble could you send me that list in a telegram?

An electric shock doesn't physically hurt you?

No it causes no physical harm.

No. He likes men because he feels attracted to them and falls in love with them.

His reactions and body responses are a consequence of his desire, not the source.

Ok then y is he attraceted to the, and y does he fall in love with them?

No it causes no physical harm.

There you go, more contradiction from Wyvern.

First you say it doesn't hurt, it's real therapy, and now you say it does hurt.