NationStates Jolt Archive

Every one of these threads makes me become less patient with homosexuals.
And homosexuals need your patience to live happily... because?

So, you actually push for no one being able to have the license to act on their impulses unless they got a nice religious permit? I'm certain you're not trying to push your own religion in doing so,because that would be another hypocritical double standard, right?

According to the gospels of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can all act on our impulses.


Have a nice day too :)

I didn't push till you pushed.
The status quo was fine.
But then, certain folks were not satisfied.

My response?
Don't give me grief, give me head.
If you ever give me grief, I'll give you more grief than you ever knew existed.

Have a nice day!

Bullshits. LOTS of married, fertile heterosexual couples CHOOSE not to have any children. They are still married, and nobody ever said anything about them having to annul their marriage or anything. Children are NOT part of the marriage contract.

Nobody say that is a crime... this does not mean but that he is something of good for the society... a society without children is one society without future...

You confuse cause with conseguence.. we are made for to perpetrate the life..

P.S.

Use respect.. use the word "bulshit" for other kind of person

I didn't push till you pushed.

And I pushed on what, exactly, pray tell?

The status quo was fine.

You mean, the status quo were homosexuals were considred second-class citizens and had their rights trampled on a daily basis?

But then, certain folks were not satisfied.

Of having their rights trampled and being second-rate citizens? I can understand why. Women were not satisfied with it, blacks were not satisfied with it, and there's no reason why gays and lesbians should be satisfied with it.


My response?
Don't give me grief, give me head.
If you ever give me grief, I'll give you more grief than you ever knew existed.

Have a nice day!
How exactly is letting others live their life as they see fit giving you any grief?

You do know that there is a difference between an emotional or spiritual marriage and a judicial one?

The reason why the government is involved is because those that get married get legal benefits.



Yes and because the so called moral majority thinks it has a right to decide who get's this "special right", and rove and bush keep bringing it up cos they need every fundie christian they can to help them in November and have no other real issues to bring up cos the country is so messed up

I didn't push till you pushed.
The status quo was fine.
But then, certain folks were not satisfied.

My response?
Don't give me grief, give me head.
If you ever give me grief, I'll give you more grief than you ever knew existed.

Have a nice day!

Yeah, dont give him grief, regardless of all the grief he gives others. :rolleyes:

Frist of all, please state where you get the facts that it isn't a choice? As far as I know science hasn't proven that there is a homosexual gene as has been purported. Who says that homosexuals aren't human beings??? Quote please.

Just because there isnt a gene doesnt mean it is a choice. And once again, if you want to prove it IS a choice, be gay, and then choose to come back. Tell us how it goes.

Nobody say that is a crime... this does not mean but that he is something of good for the society... a society without children is one society without future...

I don't quite know how to break it to ya but just cos someone is gay, doesn't mean they can't and don't reproduce!!! Next moralistic, judgemental and UnChristLike comment Please ;-)

And I pushed on what, exactly, pray tell?

You mean, the status quo were homosexuals were considred second-class citizens and had their rights trampled on a daily basis?

Of having their rights trampled and being second-rate citizens? I can understand why. Women were not satisfied with it, blacks were not satisfied with it, and there's no reason why gays and lesbians should be satisfied with it.


How exactly is letting others live their life as they see fit giving you any grief?

En very brief.
The world was just fine as it was, circa 1988.
Now, some folks pushed for changes.
Reaction? Reaction indeed!
Take whatever 'progress' they made away.

That will teach 'em to be focussed on being very good and quiet little boys.
To be seldom seen, and never ever heard!

PS: I consider asking me questions that I find disturbing as causing me grief.

Nobody say that is a crime... this does not mean but that he is something of good for the society... a society without children is one society without future...
1) Are you saying the only good thing someone can do for humanity is breed? Because that's also bullshit, and a human being's contribution to society need not be to spawn as many offsprings as possible. Especially in these times of overpopulation

2)Letting gays and lesbians marry will create a society without children how, exactly? They do not eat babies for breakfast. And the 90% of heterosexuals will not suddenly think "Oh, wow, we can marry someone of the same sex now! Let's all do it and start liking people of our gender!". Heterosexuality is not so fragile that it can't survive others being allowed same rights. So children will still be part of everyone's happy life.


This shows there is no logical, rational basis to ban homosexuals from marrying. Only personnal dislike and/or prejudice can justify such a measure.

En very brief.
The world was just fine as it was, circa 1988.
Now, some folks pushed for changes.
Reaction? Reaction indeed!
Take whatever 'progress' they made away.

That will teach 'em to be focussed on being very good and quiet little boys.
To be seldom seen, and never ever heard!

PS: I consider asking me questions that I find disturbing as causing me grief.

I consider the contempt you have for other humans based on sexual orientation causing everyone else grief. Do unto others.

I didn't push till you pushed.
The status quo was fine.
But then, certain folks were not satisfied.

My response?
Don't give me grief, give me head.
If you ever give me grief, I'll give you more grief than you ever knew existed.

Have a nice day!

Yeah the status quo is fine as long as it doesn't impinge on YOU or YOUR civil rights.. here's a lil something that says it way better than I can.. and you don't scare me.. if you want to be a bully bring it on!

First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

1) Are you saying the only good thing someone can do for humanity is breed? Because that's also bullshit, and a human being's contribution to society need not be to spawn as many offsprings as possible. Especially in these times of overpopulation

2)Letting gays and lesbians marry will create a society without children how, exactly? They do not eat babies for breakfast. And the 90% of heterosexuals will not suddenly think "Oh, wow, we can marry someone of the same sex now! Let's all do it and start liking people of our gender!". Heterosexuality is not so fragile that it can't survive others being allowed same rights. So children will still be part of everyone's happy life.


This shows there is no logical, rational basis to ban homosexuals from marrying. Only personnal dislike and/or prejudice can justify such a measure.

Who says that humans make their decisions based on logic and rationality?
Not me, that's for sure.

Humans are emotional, temperamental, and preferential.
That's the way we are.
If you don't like it, you are out of luck.

Please describe how and when you decided to be heterosexual.

The choice arguement as well as being unscientifically sound is also again disproved if you look at the many instances of homosexuality in other animal species. But then I guess the lil critters woke up and chose to be gay too.. who knew they were that smart!!!!!!!!!!!!!

En very brief.
The world was just fine as it was, circa 1988.
Now, some folks pushed for changes.
Reaction? Reaction indeed!
Take whatever 'progress' they made away.

That will teach 'em to be focussed on being very good and quiet little boys.
To be seldom seen, and never ever heard!

So, we should just take back every civil rights women earned in the last 60 years? We should also take back every liberty earned by the blacks in the last 50? And we should take back what gays have earned in the last 30?

All that because they pushed for change! How evil is that! Change! Think of their audacity!

So you're saying we should go back to slavery being legal, too? Because that happened because some people decided to push for "change"! That will teach those slaves to:
"be focussed on being very good and quiet little boys.
To be seldom seen, and never ever heard! "

Isn't that right?

When things are wrong, people change them to make things right. It's been happening for several centuries now. And you would like to go back to how things were when most of the population was considered a half a human being? I pity you.

PS: I consider asking me questions that I find disturbing as causing me grief.
Boo fucking hoo for you, little boy. :rolleyes:

I have no other counsel for you but this: grow a thicker skin, and stop trying to close your eyes on issues you don't want to see. This will not make them disappear, and it's childish at best.

So, we should just take back every civil rights women earned in the last 60 years? We should also take back every liberty earned by the blacks in the last 50? And we should take back what gays have earned in the last 30?

All that because they pushed for change! How evil is that! Change! Think of their audacity!

So you're saying we should go back to slavery being legal, too? Because that happened because some people decided to push for "change"! That will teach those slaves to:
"be focussed on being very good and quiet little boys.
To be seldom seen, and never ever heard! "

Isn't that right?

When things are wrong, people change them to make things right. It's been happening for several centuries now. And you would like to go back to how things were when most of the population was considered a half a human being? I pity you.

Boo fucking hoo for you, little boy. :rolleyes:

I have no other counsel for you but this: grow a thicker skin, and stop trying to close your eyes on issues you don't want to see. This will not make them disappear, and it's childish at best.

Call me Colonel Blimp.

PS: I'll be happy to vote for laws that making cussing ( such as using the F-word ) a criminal offense.
I disaprove of 'progress'. On principle.

Who says that humans make their decisions based on logic and rationality?
Not me, that's for sure.

Humans are emotional, temperamental, and preferential.
That's the way we are.
If you don't like it, you are out of luck.
I'm not asking you to like anyone. Humans can like or dislike and be as emotionnal as they see fit.

Laws, however, are designed to be impartial. Laws do not have preferences. Laws treat everyone equally.

So stop trying to curtain the legals rights of others.

You don't like gays? Fine, don't be their friend. Stop trying to make their lives miserable just because you don't like them, though. Live and let live. Otherwise, maybe you'll be the next one who sees his rights diminished because somebody else doesn't like so-and-so about you.

Call me Colonel Blimp.

PS: I'll be happy to vote for laws that making cussing ( such as using the F-word ) a criminal offense.
I disaprove of 'progress'. On principle.
Alright. Color me crazy. You are being sarcastic, are you not?

Please tell me you are.

Call me Colonel Blimp.

PS: I'll be happy to vote for laws that making cussing ( such as using the F-word ) a criminal offense.
I disaprove of 'progress'. On principle.

Stop posting on a forum. In fact, stop using a computer. In fact, stop talking/reading/writing. Move out of your house, and live somewhere in the forests of Africe. You can only communicate using grunts. You have no posessions.

Thats what its like without progress. Kill yourself.

I'm not asking you to like anyone. Humans can like or dislike and be as emotionnal as they see fit.

Laws, however, are designed to be impartial. Laws do not have preferences. Laws treat everyone equally.

So stop trying to curtain the legals rights of others.

You don't like gays? Fine, don't be their friend. Stop trying to make their lives miserable just because you don't like them, though. Live and let live. Otherwise, maybe you'll be the next one who sees his rights diminished because somebody else doesn't like so-and-so about you.

If the majority makes a Law that outlaws your lifestyle, your preference, or your choice, or even your pre-determined behaviour, then you are free to emigrate.
*shrug*

If the majority makes a Law that outlaws your lifestyle, your preference, or your choice, or even your pre-determined behaviour, then you are free to emigrate.
*shrug*
Tyranny by the majority is *not* a valid way to govern a country.

If you want to go to a place where anyone's civil liberties are trampled on by the majority, feel free to emigrate to Iran or any other fun place ruled by a theocracy.

I'm not asking you to like anyone. Humans can like or dislike and be as emotionnal as they see fit.

Laws, however, are designed to be impartial. Laws do not have preferences. Laws treat everyone equally.

So stop trying to curtain the legals rights of others.

You don't like gays? Fine, don't be their friend. Stop trying to make their lives miserable just because you don't like them, though. Live and let live. Otherwise, maybe you'll be the next one who sees his rights diminished because somebody else doesn't like so-and-so about you.

how can you say a law doesnt have a preference?... it's a definition between what some nitwit thought of as right and wrong... I mean if you think about it and break it down - a law is the preference of the law's creator

Tyranny by the majority is *not* a valid way to govern a country.

If you want to go to a place where anyone's civil liberties are trampled on by the majority, feel free to emigrate to Iran or any other fun place ruled by a theocracy.

*snaps* I have always voted for Dictatorship by Majority - and I will always do so.

how can you say a law doesnt have a preference?... it's a definition between what some nitwit thought of as right and wrong... I mean if you think about it and break it down - a law is the preference of the law's creator
Not in any parliamentory democracy worth it's salt, it's not.

This is why tribunals have the legal power to break laws deemed unconstitutionnal. To prevent a ruling body from making a law based on preferences of the law's creator(s).

Keep in mind creating laws that aren't fair for all is the first step down the road to fascism. We all know how that went last time a country went that road.

*snaps* I have always voted for Dictatorship by Majority - and I will always do so.

there there... it'll all be ok ... momma knows best

Not in any parliamentory democracy worth it's salt, it's not.

This is why tribunals have the legal power to break laws deemed unconstitutionnal. To prevent a ruling body from making a law based on preferences of the law's creator(s).

Keep in mind creating laws that aren't fair for all is the first step down the road to fascism. We all know how that went last time a country went that road.

Godwinson! You lose!
ROFLMAO!

there there... it'll all be ok ... momma knows best

:fluffle: I trust Momma, who knows best!

*snaps* I have always voted for Dictatorship by Majority - and I will always do so.
Then, and even though ad hominen attacks are usually against my principles...

I guess you're retarded.

Sorry for saying so. But I think anyone who wants tyranny by the majority as a form of government is a fool. The minute you start trying to restrict other's rights... you never know when you're next.

Notice I didn't say *if* you'll be next. I said *when* you'll be next.


Luckily for all the rest of humanity, your point of view is not the prevalent one.

I don't quite know how to break it to ya but just cos someone is gay, doesn't mean they can't and don't reproduce!!! Next moralistic, judgemental and UnChristLike comment Please ;-)

READ THE OTHER MY COMMENT'S BEFORE TO SPEACK...

SECOND.. my observations are not dictated from the fact that I'm catholic, however, considered the tone of yours post (and that one of many others), I would want to remember to you that the catholic doctrine is a philosophy that has 2000 years of age, while Americans history is only 200 years old. therefore that' ideas, deserves however respect. THAT IS CULTURE.

I wonder how many orgasms BogMarsh just had. Im sure he gets off to being flamed. Any attention is good attention.

Then, and even though ad hominen attacks are usually against my principles...

I guess you're retarded.

Sorry for saying so. But I think anyone who wants tyranny by the majority as a form of government is a fool. The minute you start trying to restrict other's rights... you never know when you're next.

Notice I didn't say *if* you'll be next. I said *when* you'll be next.


Luckily for all the rest of humanity, your point of view is not the prevalent one.

Pray tell me: how do we decide what is right and what is wrong?
By popular Vote, or by Divine Command?

Pray tell me: how do we decide what is right and what is wrong?
By popular Vote, or by Divine Command?

pick me pick me.. i know this one!

popular vote!!

what do i win?...... what do i win!?

I wonder how many orgasms BogMarsh just had. Im sure he gets off to being flamed. Any attention is good attention.

you should see his branding iron

Pray tell me: how do we decide what is right and what is wrong?
By popular Vote, or by Divine Command?
We all decided what is right and wrong according to our moral beliefs, and our critical thinking.

We do not, however, codify morality into law. Laws are made to protect citizens from becoming victims. Not enforce what is right and wrong. This is why there is no such thing as a thought crime. And no such thing as a crime without a victim.

There is no victim in allowing two people who are in a loving, committed relationship from marrying. Hence the law should not prevent them from doing so.

We all decided what is right and wrong according to our moral beliefs, and our critical thinking.

We do not, however, codify morality into law. Laws are made to protect citizens from becoming victims. Not enforce what is right and wrong. This is why there is no such thing as a thought crime. And no such thing as a crime without a victim.

There is no victim in allowing two people who are in a loving, committed relationship from marrying. Hence the law should not prevent them from doing so.

Its always a bad idea when states try and meddle with peoples personal affairs,personally I think the institution of marriage is outdated, but hell, if two people love each other enough to want to get married, then why the hell not?
I mean how many straight couples get divorced each year, thousands!Why not give someone else a chance.
I agree that gay couples should not get married in church,thats fair enough, the church(s) have their own rules which their members should abide by, but why should the morality of some prevent the happiness of others!If people think gay marriage is evil, that fine, whatever you want to believe, but to prevent others from doing so is imposing your morals on others!

We all decided what is right and wrong according to our moral beliefs, and our critical thinking.

We do not, however, codify morality into law. Laws are made to protect citizens from becoming victims. Not enforce what is right and wrong. This is why there is no such thing as a thought crime. And no such thing as a crime without a victim.

There is no victim in allowing two people who are in a loving, committed relationship from marrying. Hence the law should not prevent them from doing so.

If we, the majority, decide to codify morality as we see fit, then that is our choice.
Live with it.

pick me pick me.. i know this one!

popular vote!!

what do i win?...... what do i win!?


You win a :fluffle:

Its always a bad idea when states try and meddle with peoples personal affairs,personally I think the institution of marriage is outdated, but hell, if two people love each other enough to want to get married, then why the hell not?
I mean how many straight couples get divorced each year, thousands!Why not give someone else a chance.

I agree the whole "sanctity of marrieg" thing got out of the window some time ago.


I agree that gay couples should not get married in church,thats fair enough, the church(s) have their own rules which their members should abide by, but why should the morality of some prevent the happiness of others!If people think gay marriage is evil, that fine, whatever you want to believe, but to prevent others from doing so is imposing your morals on others!
Actually, gays should be able to get married in those churches who wish to perform ceremonies for them. Of course, all churches should be free to decide for themselves.

For example, in Canada, where gay marriage is legal, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't perform marriage ceremonies for them. But the United Church of Canada does, and gays and lesbians get get married in a religious ceremony there.

Howewever, the core of the matter is more about civil marriage ceremonies. Getting married before a judge at a tribunal or a civil servant is what this debate is mostly about.

If we, the majority, decide to codify morality as we see fit, then that is our choice.
Live with it.
No, that is not your choice. The minorities will always fight for their rights until they are respected. Nobody will ever accept being treated like shit just because stupid bigots try to force their unfair laws on them. If you want the struggle to end, you'll have to stop trying to oppress others unfairly.

Live with it.

No, that is not your choice. The minorities will always fight for their rights until they are respected. Nobody will ever accept being treated like shit just because stupid bigots try to force their unfair laws on them. If you want the struggle to end, you'll have to stop trying to oppress others unfairly.

Live with it.

Nope. Minorities that are troublesome just... dissapear.
Ask the Red Indians in America.
If you find any.
My advice? Live by 'don't ask and don't tell'.

Nope. Minorities that are troublesome just... dissapear.
Ask the Red Indians in America.
If you find any.
My advice? Live by 'don't ask and don't tell'.
Not gonna happen anywhere except in your dreams.

You seem under the strange delusion that most human beings are bigoted little fascists-in-being just like you. How wrong you are.

Please describe how and when you decided to be heterosexual.

Please provide scientific proof of a homosexual gene. That's all you have to do. Doubt you can that's why I am very confident. Let's go, I am waiting.:D

Exactly. When discussing gay MARRIAGE rights, this whole tangent about children is completely irrelevant. We allow heterosexuals to get married regardless of whether or not they plan to have children, so clearly procreation is not a requirement for matrimony. If you want to debate ADOPTION or PARENTING by homosexuals, start a thread about that.

There you go folks, children are irrelevant when it comes to marriage. Who's the close-minded one?:cool:

Please provide scientific proof of a homosexual gene. That's all you have to do. Doubt you can that's why I am very confident. Let's go, I am waiting.:D
You're the one who states that homosexuality is a choice. THe burden of the proof rests on YOU, not Bottle.

Not gonna happen anywhere except in your dreams.

You seem under the strange delusion that most human beings are bigoted little fascists-in-being just like you. How wrong you are.

You are really obsessed by fascists, aren't you?
Here is my prediction btw:
Cultural Conservatives will win the culture war.
By a continous series of landslides.

First of all "not a choice" does not equate to "There is a homosexual gene." Many human traits are not completely genetic, but are not choices either. Not to mention, that even genetic control need not be a single gene.

Correlation studies result in more correlation between genetics and sexuality than one would expect if there were no genetic factors involved. There is also evidence that a male is more likely to be homosexual if he has older brothers - the chance of being homosexual increases by something like a factor of 3 for every male born to a woman after the first. Hormones in the womb have been shown to affect sexuality.

Meanwhile, the fact that the neural structure is different in homosexuals than in heterosexuals points very clearly to the idea that, environmental or not, it is not a choice.

On top of that, the only logical way you could suggest that any sexuality is a choice, is to state that all sexuality is a choice. So tell me, at what point did the sexuality fairy visit you and give you a choice of what sex you would or would not be attracted to? What criteria did you use to make that decision? What did you choose? Can you choose to change it again?

Nope, you're wrong. Homosexuals have claimed they have a gene that makes them that way. Its their burden to prove this, and so far, have done miserably. You can try to change the argument but the facts are the facts. Next.

There you go folks, children are irrelevant when it comes to marriage. Who's the close-minded one?:cool:
Tell me how many straight, fertile couples who do not want children are barred from getting married?

Or how many marriages are anulled because the married couple does not produce any children?

Or please provide me with a marriage contract from the place you live in, with the part about the couple agreeing contractually to have children emboldened.

Example: I have a cold at the moment. I did not choose to get a cold, nor am I choosing to continue having the cold. I would love very much to not have a cold right now. However, this cold is not caused by any genetic element that I possess.

Golly, look at that! Something that is both not a choice, and also not determined by genetics! Will wonders never cease...

I think part of the problem is that human beings have perhaps more control over the EXPRESSION of our sexuality than any other life form we know of. This should not be confused with having conscious control over our sexuality itself, but it often is.


No, see, you don't get how this works. Everybody is born heterosexual, but some people hate Jesus so much that they decide to be gay. Either that, or the feminists get a hold of them, and turn the nice heterosexual boys into limp-wristed girly-men. :P


Okay, I totally have to go doodle a cartoon of the sexuality fairy now...:)

You have a cold, you take care of yourself to get rid of it. :p

You are really obsessed by fascists, aren't you?
Here is my prediction btw:
Cultural Conservatives will win the culture war.
By a continous series of landslides.
We'll just have to wait and see, now won't we?

You're the one who states that homosexuality is a choice. THe burden of the proof rests on YOU, not Bottle.

Wrong, don't lie now. I said and I will type slow so you can understand, homosexuals have stated that there is a homosexual gene. Scientists are struggling to find proof of this as we speak, yet, have not been able to provide proof.

We'll just have to wait and see, now won't we?

Naw. Tis going fine.
Got any ideas of what the social polarity of the next SC judge will be?

Naw. Tis going fine.
Got any ideas of what the social polarity of the next SC judge will be?
US egocentrism at its best.

Think your country is the only one in the world?

Ever wondered why in most of the civilized world the tendency is either having permitted gay marriage already or thinking about it?

Have fun siding with muslim theocracies and countries with abysmal records on civil rights. The rest of us will just shake our collective heads in a disapproving gesture.

So-called "land of freedom and liberty" indeed.

Nope, you're wrong. Homosexuals have claimed they have a gene that makes them that way. Its their burden to prove this, and so far, have done miserably. You can try to change the argument but the facts are the facts. Next.

You are
a) not proving it IS NOT a gene and
b) not proving that it IS a choice.

Please do so. Me personally, I dont think its neither. I think something happens during fetal development that fucks with the hypothalamus.

You are
a) not proving it IS NOT a gene and
b) not proving that it IS a choice.

Please do so. Me personally, I dont think its neither. I think something happens during fetal development that fucks with the hypothalamus.

Oh heaven's me, I didn't prove what you are asserting? Shame on me. Please go back to the junior high debating team.:p

US egocentrism at its best.

Think your country is the only one in the world?

Ever wondered why in most of the civilized world the tendency is either having permitted gay marriage already or thinking about it?

Have fun siding with muslim theocracies and countries with abysmal records on civil rights. The rest of us will just shake our collective heads in a disapproving gesture.

So-called "land of freedom and liberty" indeed.

*shakes head*
Civil Unions. Not marriage. Civil Unions are fine by me. But the M-thing... not a chance. Not in the US, not in the UK, and not in the Benelux either.
*grins*

The rest of us will just shake our collective heads in a disapproving gesture.
Do you have any idea how much damage that will inflict on John Roberts SUV?
Let me tell you - no damage at all.

*shakes head*
Civil Unions. Not marriage. Civil Unions are fine by me. But the M-thing... not a chance. Not in the US, not in the UK, and not in the Benelux either.
*grins*

Again, allow me to say: let's see about that in 10 years.

*shakes head*
Civil Unions. Not marriage. Civil Unions are fine by me. But the M-thing... not a chance. Not in the US, not in the UK, and not in the Benelux either.
*grins*

Do you have any idea how much damage that will inflict on John Roberts SUV?
Let me tell you - no damage at all.

It's just a term, nothing more.

I know people who were married by a justice of the peace. They tell people they are married. Do we prosecute them?

What should people say? We are Civil Unionized?

Religion didn't create marriage, it absorbed it.

Oh heaven's me, I didn't prove what you are asserting? Shame on me. Please go back to the junior high debating team.:p
You didn't prove what you were asserting, either.

You're calling him for proof, while stating that what you say should be taken at face value for the holy truth of the universe? Doesn't work like that.

You obvsiouly weren't the captain of the debate club in junior high, either.

Again, allow me to say: let's see about that in 10 years.


*lolling head*
and 20 years after that, it may be revoked again.
Got any idea how often sodomy has been criminalised and then de-criminalised in the last 3000 years?

Oh heaven's me, I didn't prove what you are asserting? Shame on me. Please go back to the junior high debating team.:p

You didnt disprove it. You cant just say "no youre wrong its a choice."

The main argument against it being a choice is homosexuality in other species. Other species act on instinct, they dont wake up and choose to be gay.

*lolling head*
and 20 years after that, it may be revoked again.
Got any idea how often sodomy has been criminalised and then de-criminalised in the last 3000 years?

You might want to cut off a 1000 or so years. I think the Greeks and Romans were ok with it.

It's just a term, nothing more.

I know people who were married by a justice of the peace. They tell people they are married. Do we prosecute them?

What should people say? We are Civil Unionized?

Religion didn't create marriage, they absorbed it.


I strongly doubt that, since religious rules ( as a category ) antedate public rules ( as a category ) by a fairly large margin.
( Even more so as the idea of Law as divorced from Divine Command appears to be a very novel idea, and is still rejected in some 20+% of the world. )

We do have lots of folks known as prophets ( rightly or wrongly ) before we discover the first chaps known as Lawgiver.
Hammurabi and Lykorgos as prime examples.

You might want to cut off a 1000 or so years. I think the Greeks and Romans were ok with it.

They flipflopped over it ( as does every culture ).
What was OK during the Theban Wars was again rejected during the period of Phillip. And his son ( THAT Alexander ) was again OK with it.

Minor historical note: roman laws and custom were rather flexible on homosexuality. Seems it made a huge difference who was on top or not.

You didnt disprove it. You cant just say "no youre wrong its a choice."

The main argument against it being a choice is homosexuality in other species. Other species act on instinct, they dont wake up and choose to be gay.
And please allow me to state this:

The choice or not issue is irrelevant.

You can choose your religion. You can choose your political affiliation. YOu can choose the way you dress. Yet, it's not okay to discriminate based on all those things.

Whatever makes any of you think it would be okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation even if it was a choice?

(Which I don't believe for a second it is, anyway, but the choice or not issue is still moot)

And for everyones information:

The success rate of these therapies in actually changing clients' sexual orientation appears to have been between 0% and something less than 0.1%. The success rate at changing clients' sexual behavior is much greater. Some of these techniques can persuade homosexuals to be celibate, either through terror, guilt, or persuasion that God considers same-sex behavior to be an abomination. They can persuade bisexuals to confine their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex. They may even be able to train gays to successfully have sex with a woman, while fantasize about making love to another man. But therapies do not seem to be capable of changing one's feelings -- one's sexual orientation -- in the vast majority of people.

Nope, you're wrong. Homosexuals have claimed they have a gene that makes them that way. Its their burden to prove this, and so far, have done miserably. You can try to change the argument but the facts are the facts. Next.
SOME homosexuals may claim that. I've seen plenty of homophobes claim it, as well. Anybody who makes that claim is, as you say, obligated to provide evidence to support their claim.

However, people who are NOT making that claim do not need to provide evidence to support it. Just because some homosexual individuals choose to claim they have a "gay gene" doesn't mean that all homosexuals everywhere must agree with this or provide support for it.

You have a cold, you take care of yourself to get rid of it. :p
Sure, but can you simply decide to not have a cold?

Do you choose to have a cold? When you get one, can you simply choose for the cold to magically disappear?

No, you cannot.

Look, you made a mistake, and you set forth an assertion that is incorrect. It's ok to make mistakes, just learn from it and do better next time.

If America is so "free", and if everyone is treated "equally". Then why is this even a debate? Not letting homosexuals marry is like not letting black people marry white people.

is like not letting black people marry white people.

That was frowned upon once as well.....

If America is so "free", and if everyone is treated "equally". Then why is this even a debate? Not letting homosexuals marry is like not letting black people marry white people.
Indeed, the arguments against gay marriage are a pretty obvious echo of the arguments that were used by racists a generation ago when they fought to keep blacks and whites from being able to marry.

So take comfort in the fact that the next generation will probably view homophobes in the same way that our current generation views those who opposed interracial marriage.

READ THE OTHER MY COMMENT'S BEFORE TO SPEACK...

SECOND.. my observations are not dictated from the fact that I'm catholic, however, considered the tone of yours post (and that one of many others), I would want to remember to you that the catholic doctrine is a philosophy that has 2000 years of age, while Americans history is only 200 years old. therefore that' ideas, deserves however respect. THAT IS CULTURE.

Well, I think you just shot yourself in the foot. You just appealed to Catholic dogma to back up your position. From what I remember, the bible only actually condems sodomy as a sin, it says nothing against lesbians, nor gay men who abstain from intercourse.

Anyway, you have yet to actually explain how it can be that a straight marriage without children is ok and gay marriage is completely wrong because, in your opinion, all gay people are selfish in wanting children and will end up with deformed/derranged children as a result.

Are you also suggesting that all children of straight couples (be they biological or adopted) are 100% sound in psychological terms?

I'd like to see some sources. I'd also like some sound scientific evidence for this theory that 100% of children want straight parents. As I said initially, children's wants are going to be largely influenced by society and that is going to go in favour of a so-called "nuclear" family (which only existed for about 30 years in the middle of the last century, never before or since in majority numbers). It is not neccessarily some instinctive or genetic desire.

Low church attendence in much of Europe strongly suggests that your numbers are dwindling, friend, therefore you have no right whatsoever to dictate your religious doctrine upon the majority who do not share your beliefs.

Now, once and for all, why should gay people not be able to marry? (Kudos to the poster who pointed out that gay marriage creates no victims, therefore should not be a crime, sorry, can't remember who it was) Come up with another argument besides the damn hypothetical children. Marriage is not all about kids, not for everyone, there is no legal obligation to breed and at this overpopulated point in time it is incredibly wise to cut back on procreation. Don't you agree? Oh, but you're Catholic, so there's the whole "every sperm is sacred" stuff to go up against. If you're capable of accepting that most people in the world, even in the UK or USA (where most posters are from) are NOT Catholic, then maybe you can accept your error.

Ooh, wait, I know. In order to satisfy your Catholic dogma and the overpopulation issue - let lesbians marry, and any bi women can marry each other. That way no sperm is being wasted and valuable women are being kept from being turned into baby machines! Yay! Everyone's happy! Except gay men, but they'll continue to get theirs outside marriage, which, if you're truely only concerned about the poor little children, won't bother you :-)

Nope, you're wrong. Homosexuals have claimed they have a gene that makes them that way.

You've spoken to every homosexual?

Meanwhile, scientists have pointed to evidence of genetic factors in sexuality. No scientist has ever made the claim of finding a specific "gay gene". Of course, the proposition that something as complex as sexual orientation is controlled by a single genetic locus is pretty unlikely.

Its their burden to prove this, and so far, have done miserably. You can try to change the argument but the facts are the facts. Next.

Yes, and I listed many facts. You completely ignored them. Goes to show what you actually think about facts. Maybe they're only "facts" if they support your preconceived notion?

Yes, and I listed many facts. You completely ignored them. Goes to show what you actually think about facts. Maybe they're only "facts" if they support your preconceived notion?
It appears that, once again, the facts have a liberal bias. :)

Wrong, don't lie now. I said and I will type slow so you can understand, homosexuals have stated that there is a homosexual gene. Scientists are struggling to find proof of this as we speak, yet, have not been able to provide proof.

Here. I'll type slow so you can understand. Even if there is no single "homosexual gene" - a proposition that neither most homosexuals nor most scientists take very seriously, that does not mean that sexual orientation is a choice.

The only way you could logically make the proposition that any sexual orientation is a choice, is to make the proposition that *all* sexual orientations are chosen. In other words, you have to provide evidence that every human being sits down and thinks, "What sex do I want to be attracted to?"

Meanwhile, scientists are not "struggling to find proof" of anything. First of all, science doesn't deal in "proof", it deals in evidence. Second of all, scientists are studying sexuality. What they have found is what I listed before - correlations that point to genetic factors, experiments that point to in utero hormonal factor, evidence that points to birth order in males, and so on.

Civil Unions. Not marriage. Civil Unions are fine by me.

So you wish to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens.

READ THE OTHER MY COMMENT'S BEFORE TO SPEACK...

SECOND.. my observations are not dictated from the fact that I'm catholic, however, considered the tone of yours post (and that one of many others), I would want to remember to you that the catholic doctrine is a philosophy that has 2000 years of age, while Americans history is only 200 years old. therefore that' ideas, deserves however respect. THAT IS CULTURE.

Umm FIRST:
I really wasn't speaking TO you directly

SECOND: When the Catholic Church stops preaching hatred and judgement in SO many ways, especially via the current Pope, then I will respect it! And I will say what I like when I like on these forums (within NS rules) so quit telling me what to do and think! Freedom of speach was still legal last time I looked!

makes me laugh that half these people that quote religion pick and chose what they buy into and chose to ignore in there everyday life!

What difference shoudl it make to you whether two people are in love wish to declare their love in the form of marriage? Bearing in mind that religion in general seems to be dwindling across the globe you should be grateful they chose to subscribe to your antiquated and outmoded ways

I couldnt give two hoots about marriage as it seems most hetrosexual couples dont seem to either as divorce rates are soaring as ever. Maybe we should ban divorce? I mean afterall that was originaly against the Bible

Godwinson! You lose!
ROFLMAO!

I invoke Inverse Godwin's Law!

"Whenever any reference to Hitler of Nazism is made, no matter how relevant to the discussion, someone will spring up and shriek "Godwin's Law!" and claim moral victory, regardless of the prior course of the debate."

makes me laugh that half these people that quote religion pick and chose what they buy into and chose to ignore in there everyday life!

What difference shoudl it make to you whether two people are in love wish to declare their love in the form of marriage? Bearing in mind that religion in general seems to be dwindling across the globe you should be grateful they chose to subscribe to your antiquated and outmoded ways

I couldnt give two hoots about marriage as it seems most hetrosexual couples dont seem to either as divorce rates are soaring as ever. Maybe we should ban divorce? I mean afterall that was originaly against the Bible
Actually, this isn't true, Protestantism is declining in much of Europe, however increased numbers of people are seeking alternative spiritual outlets and conventional religion elsewhere in the world is still pretty strong.

However, Catholicsm and Christianity in general no longer holds the power it once did, therefore the Catholic church has no place lording it over everyone in the world, expecting all 6.2 billion of us to follow their rules. This is exactly why legal affairs should not be decided on religious grounds, as the laws have to apply to every member of the country. If anyone can find me a solid, secular argument for keeping homosexual marriage illegal then I will give it serious consideration. However, not one politician or sociologist has been able to do so.

Actually I think we should allow gay marrage...and make it illegal for heterosexuals. why should they be happy all the time while we suffer under the burdens of being leashed to a single woman all our lives? We get nagged, belittled and basically have our decision making ability surgically removed. If they want that, more power to 'em. The only folks that win in this is the divorce lawyers anyway, they would get twice the business. hence I move for a constitution amendment to allow marrage for gay couples...and freedom from marrage for everyone else.

So basicly you wan't to make marriage less meaningful.

How does government make marriage more meaningful?

The reason why the government is involved is because those that get married get legal benefits.

Aren't those legal benefits just another example of government favoritism?

You would have to be living in a cave not to know that this is a big issue right now. Or, at least it was before I moved into my cave. But I think we are looking at the wrong question.

It should not be "Should gays be allowed to marry?", but rather "Why is the government deciding who is allowed to get married?"

By giving the State power to license marriage, we are effectively giving them the power to say that any given person cannot marry. Just because the marriage laws have not changed for years doesn't mean that they won't, in fact that is what we are looking at right now. Instead of worrying about whether or not two men should be allowed to get married, we should be wondering why any two people should need the government's permission to affect a social contract.

I suggest we remove government from the equation entirely. If someone wishes to marry then they can, by mutual consent, consider themselves married.

Ok great so if the gov. doesn't consent to marriage. Then that means the only place left would b the religous ally which is great now gays r banned from marriage. O and divorce isn't allowed. No gov. benefits from marriage either.

Ok great so if the gov. doesn't consent to marriage. Then that means the only place left would b the religous ally which is great now gays r banned from marriage. O and divorce isn't allowed. No gov. benefits from marriage either.
Not nessisarily the government could have a "union" arangement that consenting adults could join into.

And let someones personal faith determine if they are "married" or not

Not nessisarily the government could have a "union" arangement that consenting adults could join into.

And let someones personal faith determine if they are "married" or not
I would sincerely love to have the option to enter a legal union with the rights and benefits of marriage, but without the name "marriage" attached to it. Personally, I think the history of marriage as an institution is disgusting, and I wouldn't want to dirty my union with it. And I'm in a hetero relationship. :)

1. How does government make marriage more meaningful?



2. Aren't those legal benefits just another example of government favoritism?
1. It can do so by making sure it is THE social standard by which other institutions are judged.
2. Your problem - not mine.
Egalitarianism may be your pipe-dream, but mine is Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

Getting awfully... tired by all the moon-baying.
If certain factions are so certain they will prevail, how come they are so afraid of putting things to a referendum?

Getting awfully... tired by all the moon-baying.
If certain factions are so certain they will prevail, how come they are so afraid of putting things to a referendum?
Because that "faction" believes that a referendum is irrelevant, at least in America.

Because that "faction" believes that a referendum is irrelevant, at least in America.

Irrelevant for which reason?
Because it is only relevant if the majority supports that faction, or
because that faction does not recognise the authority of the majority?



We have the secular option of civil partnerships for gays, here in the UK.
And I feel confident that the majority of the population is fine with it.

Irrelevant for which reason?
Because it is only relevant if the majority supports that faction, or
because that faction does not recognise the authority of the majority?

Because it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, in this case. In America, it doesn't matter if a majority of people vote that black people should live in slavery...they don't get their way, and we don't waste time with a referendum.

Because it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, in this case. In America, it doesn't matter if a majority of people vote that black people should live in slavery...they don't get their way, and we don't waste time with a referendum.

Which leads me to a tangential question:

What mechanism is used/would you use to define Right and Wrong, politically?
( mechanism as in push-the-button-and-get-a-yes/no-answer )

Which leads me to a tangential question:

What mechanism is used/would you use to define Right and Wrong, politically?
( mechanism as in push-the-button-and-get-a-yes/no-answer )
"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."


Basically, "if its not hurting anyone, who cares"?

"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

Uh-huh. How would one prove or test that assumption.
I might make the counterclaim that your right to swing your fist ends at the point where it disturbs my inner peace.

Basically, "if its not hurting anyone, who cares"?

Define 'hurt'. All 'hurt' is a chemical reaction in the brain. So why not include other feelings as well?
I don't think that slander causes phycisal hurt. Therefore, decriminalize it?

Define 'hurt'. All 'hurt' is a chemical reaction in the brain. So why not include other feelings as well?
I don't think that slander causes phycisal hurt. Therefore, decriminalize it?

Well, I think I see where youre going with this, and I also think you'll be awfully hard-pressed to convince anyone that homosexual marriages truly harm the "moral fiber" of "decent god-fearing christians".

I also think that what you mean is "offend".

You have the right to not be hurt, phsyically or even emotionally, by another person.
You dont have the right not to be offended.

Neither your moral standards, nor that of any institution, is worthy of being applicable to all people, at all times.
As such, the simple fact of life is that you'll have to learn to be a little less judgemental of others, or get crushed by the steamroller of moderation and progress.

C'est la vie.

Well, I think I see where youre going with this, and I also think you'll be awfully hard-pressed to convince anyone that homosexual marriages truly harm the "moral fiber" of "decent god-fearing christians".

I also think that what you mean is "offend".

You have the right to not be hurt, phsyically or even emotionally, by another person.
You dont have the right not to be offended.

Neither your moral standards, nor that of any institution, is worthy of being applicable to all people, at all times.
As such, the simple fact of life is that you'll have to learn to be a little less judgemental of others, or get crushed by the steamroller of moderation and progress.

C'est la vie.

I'm going somewhere else, actually.

We have no general way of making a Final Argument but as an appeal to Authority.
Either we use Majority Decision as that Authority, or we use God.
Inasmuch as we can't expect the Almighty to climb down whenever we have a human squabble, I propose ( as I always do and have done ) to decide all such matters by Majority Dictatorship.

As such, the simple fact of life is that anyone who defies Diktat by Majority has to be put into an oubliette - for treason.

If the Majority decides that all of the USA now has to follow the precepts of the book of Mormon, the individual simply has to live with it, or leave.

I'm going somewhere else, actually.

We have no general way of making a Final Argument but as an appeal to Authority.
Either we use Majority Decision as that Authority, or we use God.
Inasmuch as we can't expect the Almighty to climb down whenever we have a human squabble, I propose ( as I always do and have done ) to decide all such matters by Majority Dictatorship.

As such, the simple fact of life is that anyone who defies Diktat by Majority has to be put into an oubliette - for treason.

If the Majority decides that all of the USA now has to follow the precepts of the book of Mormon, the individual simply has to live with it, or leave.

And I think, you are quite insane.

I dont care if 51% of humanity wanted to make buggering polar bears legal, thats still retarded behaviour.
Making any religious doctrine the law of the land always leads to eventual strife, and for you to suggest this sort of thing makes me wonder if you are even serious.

So, you would put a homosexual in a proverbial oubliette (or perhaps a real one mine fuhrer?) for "not following the herd?"

You say your a christian?

Then I suppose you should be thankful people like you werent running society back then, otherwise your little radical cult leaders would have been locked in a 1st Century Gitmo, and your message would have died with them.

Frankly sir, if you are in fact serious in these claims, Im calling you a hippocrite of the finest calibre.

And I think, you are quite insane.

I dont care if 51% of humanity wanted to make buggering polar bears legal, thats still retarded behaviour.
Making any religious doctrine the law of the land always leads to eventual strife, and for you to suggest this sort of thing makes me wonder if you are even serious.

So, you would put a homosexual in a proverbial oubliette (or perhaps a real one mine fuhrer?) for "not following the herd?"

You say your a christian?

Then I suppose you should be thankful people like you werent running society back then, otherwise your little radical cult leaders would have been locked in a 1st Century Gitmo, and your message would have died with them.

Frankly sir, if you are in fact serious in these claims, Im calling you a hippocrite of the finest calibre.

If the majority decides so, ANYONE can be put into the oubliette for not following the herd.

I think you are evading the question ( of course you have the right not to asnwer it ): WHAT do you propose to use as Final Authority.
It ain't Final Authority if you leave the option of appeal against the decision of that Authority.

Let me rephrase that: how do you propose to settle the 'shoulds' in society?

If the majority decides so, ANYONE can be put into the oubliette for not following the herd.

I think you are evading the question ( of course you have the right not to asnwer it ): WHAT do you propose to use as Final Authority.
It ain't Final Authority if you leave the option of appeal against the decision of that Authority.

Let me rephrase that: how do you propose to settle the 'shoulds' in society?

In this case I dont think any authority should ever be "final".

If your thinking in a legal sense, I do not think such things should be eternally static.
"Majority rule" is fine until the majority wish to infringe upon rights of others.
Ideally such things are exceedingly rare, but it does happen.

If your thinking along spiritual or moral lines, Im all the more reluctant to validate any need for a "Final Authority".
Neither any doctrine, or diety is applicable to all.

In this case I dont think any authority should ever be "final".

If your thinking in a legal sense, I do not think such things should be eternally static.
"Majority rule" is fine until the majority wish to infringe upon rights of others.
Ideally such things are exceedingly rare, but it does happen.

If your thinking along spiritual or moral lines, Im all the more reluctant to validate any need for a "Final Authority".
Neither any doctrine, or diety is applicable to all.

If you don't have a Final Authority, you can't determine what makes anything ( say: the right to breathe air ) a right.

Al rights ARE social constructs!

Please, consider carefully: what mechanism do you propose to use in order to determine which social constructs will be applied to society and human behaviour?

Shoulds are beyond proof ( by nature ). How do you propose to settle between conflicting shoulds?

If you don't have a Final Authority, you can't determine what makes anything ( say: the right to breathe air ) a right.

Al rights ARE social constructs!

Please, consider carefully: what mechanism do you propose to use in order to determine which social constructs will be applied to society and human behaviour?

Shoulds are beyond proof ( by nature ). How do you propose to settle between conflicting shoulds?

Needs of the many> desires of the few.

Or to be more specific, any issue must be weighed against its value, or detriment to society as a whole.
If say, gay marriage is the issue, then the question is, "Whom does this cause a problem to?"

The answer is:"It doesnt seem to actually harm anyone, merely offend followers of varous religious groups."

In wich case, since it poses no harm, it outweighs the desires of these various groups.

*gets comfy and waits*

this should be good...

Uh-huh. How would one prove or test that assumption.

Prove or test the "assumption"? You asked me for a standard by which to measure "right and wrong, politically speaking." I gave you one.


I might make the counterclaim that your right to swing your fist ends at the point where it disturbs my inner peace.

You might. But you asked me for my opinion, and my opinion is what I gave you.


Define 'hurt'. All 'hurt' is a chemical reaction in the brain. So why not include other feelings as well?

The only "hurts" that we have criminalized are the ones from physical or material "injury" of one kind or another. For instance, theft does not cause you physical pain, but it does constitute a "material injury" because your property has been taken from you. Theft is not illegal simply because you feel sad when people steal things from you; it's illegal because of their act of taking what is not their own.

There is no legal right to be happy. There is no legal protection against having your feelings hurt. There are, however, legal protections against being physically or materially (or financially) "injured" by others.


I don't think that slander causes phycisal hurt. Therefore, decriminalize it?
Slander is not illegal because it causes emotional pain, though it may cause emotional pain in many cases. Saying something that hurts somebody's feelings isn't illegal (at least not in my country).

You know what I haven't seen in a long time? The old "If you put 100 homosexual men on an island and come back 100 years later, they're all dead, and that's why homosexuality is wrong" argument.
I wonder why. I mean, it can't have been disproved, since that doesn't seem to keep the other 'arguments' from popping up constantly.

You know what I haven't seen in a long time? The old "If you put 100 homosexual men on an island and come back 100 years later, they're all dead, and that's why homosexuality is wrong" argument.
I wonder why. I mean, it can't have been disproved, since that doesn't seem to keep the other 'arguments' from popping up constantly.

Probably coz it actualy has no barring on anything at all. So if I put a 100 wimmin on a an island an come back in a 100 years and they are all dead, what does that actualy mean?

You know what I haven't seen in a long time? The old "If you put 100 homosexual men on an island and come back 100 years later, they're all dead, and that's why homosexuality is wrong" argument.

If you put 100 heterosexual males on an island and come back 100 years later, they'll all be just as dead as the homosexual males, and they'll have produced precisely the same number of children.


I wonder why. I mean, it can't have been disproved, since that doesn't seem to keep the other 'arguments' from popping up constantly.
What's to "disprove"? Yes, it is true, homosexual men are mortal like the rest of us. Most of them don't live past 100 years old. I'm not clear on how that shows homosexuality is wrong, though.

If you put 100 heterosexual males on an island and come back 100 years later, they'll all be just as dead as the homosexual males, and they'll have produced precisely the same number of children.

Do note that the homosexuals probably died happier.

Do note that the homosexuals probably died happier.
ROFLMAO! Brilliant. Thanks for that :D

If you don't have a Final Authority, you can't determine what makes anything ( say: the right to breathe air ) a right.

Al rights ARE social constructs!

Please, consider carefully: what mechanism do you propose to use in order to determine which social constructs will be applied to society and human behaviour?

Shoulds are beyond proof ( by nature ). How do you propose to settle between conflicting shoulds?
That's so vague. Give an example of "conflicting shoulds" and maybe someone will propose a way to settle it.

If you put 100 heterosexual males on an island and come back 100 years later, they'll all be just as dead as the homosexual males, and they'll have produced precisely the same number of children.


What's to "disprove"? Yes, it is true, homosexual men are mortal like the rest of us. Most of them don't live past 100 years old. I'm not clear on how that shows homosexuality is wrong, though.

That hasn't stopped the 'phobes from using all those other arguments... :rolleyes:

"Homosexuality is un-natural!"
"No it isn't, animals can be gay too."
"Just because animals do it doesn't mean it's right! Why did you even bring this up~!?! *coddles bible"

See?

That hasn't stopped the 'phobes from using all those other arguments... :rolleyes:

"Homosexuality is un-natural!"
"No it isn't, animals can be gay too."
"Just because animals do it doesn't mean it's right! Why did you even bring this up~!?! *coddles bible"

See?
We all learned homophobes are neither logical nor consistent in their arguments a long time ago.

What are you trying to say?

We all learned homophobes are neither logical nor consistent in their arguments a long time ago.

What are you trying to say?

I'm just wondering what causes them to abandon certain arguments and not others. I mean, it *can't* be the fact they are utter bullshit.

I'm just wondering what causes them to abandon certain arguments and not others. I mean, it *can't* be the fact they are utter bullshit.
Of course, because if the fact that their arguments are utter bullshit could make them abandon them, they'd be left with nothing by now.

I don't know. Maybe it's about personnal preference or dogma.

actually i wonder.

if you put 100 heterosexual men on a island for a hundred years, i wonder how many would turn gay

Government shouldn't be involved in a contract between two people. Gays should have the option of marriage by a religious authority, adoption, and all of the other legal rights that come with marriage, in the form of private contracts. Why should such a personal thing be public in nature?

Government shouldn't be involved in a contract between two people. Gays should have the option of marriage by a religious authority, adoption, and all of the other legal rights that come with marriage, in the form of private contracts. Why should such a personal thing be public in nature?

Actually the goverment should because it is the equalizer when it comes to the ignorance of people.

Leaving it to religion would leave them with:

"The house of marriage will fall if gays get married"
"Adopted kids will be forced to be gay."

Adoption is not a fact of marriage. It's who can provide a good home for a child. A couple is prefered but if a single can do it, a child would not be denied a home.

DOnt let them marry

DOnt let them marry
Why?

Why?

Because it is cruel and unjust punishment ?

That hasn't stopped the 'phobes from using all those other arguments... :rolleyes:

"Homosexuality is un-natural!"
"No it isn't, animals can be gay too."
"Just because animals do it doesn't mean it's right! Why did you even bring this up~!?! *coddles bible"

See?
Have you ever gone to a playground and seen a kid throwing a tenis ball against a wall? She tosses the ball, it bounces back to her, she tosses again, over and over and over. To some people, it doesn't look like much fun. But I could toss a tenis ball at a wall for hours when I was a kid.

Talking with homophobes is essentially the same thing.

"The house of marriage will fall if gays get married"
"Adopted kids will be forced to be gay."

Sounds alot like:

"The Earth was created 6000 years ago"
"The Earth is flat"
"The Sun revolves around the Earth"

they don't deserve to get married

[QUOTE=Kazus]

"The Earth was created 6000 years ago
"The Earth is flat
"The Sun revolves around the Earth

yes
no
no

Government shouldn't be involved in a contract between two people.

Contractual law can only be enforced by the government. Thus, it is impossible to even have a contract in which the government is not involved.

Gays should have the option of marriage by a religious authority, adoption, and all of the other legal rights that come with marriage, in the form of private contracts. Why should such a personal thing be public in nature?

There are no private vs. public contracts. Contracts are always enforceable only by the government. (unless, that is, we want to go back to the days when private employers would hire thugs to enforce contracts - no matter how unfair they were to begin with).

Meh. I say throw away legal marriage entirely. All it has become is a point of contention in pointless debates about morality and a means to financial ruin for men.

heterosexuals are superior

heterosexuals are superior
no reporting needed(but if you want go ahead

Meh. I say throw away legal marriage entirely. All it has become is a point of contention in pointless debates about morality and a means to financial ruin for men.
we need marriage

heterosexuals are superior

So are whites, right?
And men?
And rich people?

Meh. I say throw away legal marriage entirely. All it has become is a point of contention in pointless debates about morality and a means to financial ruin for men.

I believe the colloquial phrase for this is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'.

Take a look at some sociological studies and you will find that not only is the average happiness of married people higher, so is their lifespan on average greater and on average children brought up in this environment are happier. That's a lot to throw away just because the cause of these benefits is a bit hard to describe in the simplistic terms of your average internet slanging match.

we need marriage

Why?

Why can't the law treat us all as individuals?

Why?

Why can't the law treat us all as individuals?

Because we don't all live as individuals. Some of us live as individuals within a relationship in which we merge our lives to the point that they are largely indistinguishable.

I suggest we remove government from the equation entirely. If someone wishes to marry then they can, by mutual consent, consider themselves married.

I agree with Shoo Flee, in that, instead of establishing marriage equality (which I strongly support because it's better than what we have now), we should probably use this chance to just abolish marriage entirely. It oppresses women, children, and non-christians, and it puts moral judgments on our Constitutional right to have sex when we feel like it, which violates the First Amendment, which requires the separation of church and state.

I would be even less surprised to hear about a strait couple abusing their children like this.

What has people up in arms in this case (and the judge in a state of high dudgeon) is that the initial accusations were dismissed on the grounds that anyone accusing a gay couple simply *must* be motivated by homophobia.

Of course amongst some groups this sort of "affirmative defence" has become a bit of a habit - so much easier to dismiss criticism if you can label all critics as bigots rather than having to ever deal with uncomfortable facts. Like the fact that this pair were guilty.

Why?

Why can't the law treat us all as individuals?

It can, the end result would however be less overall happiness in society. Which would seem to be a bit of an unfortunate result.

I believe the colloquial phrase for this is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'.

Take a look at some sociological studies and you will find that not only is the average happiness of married people higher, so is their lifespan on average greater and on average children brought up in this environment are happier. That's a lot to throw away just because the cause of these benefits is a bit hard to describe in the simplistic terms of your average internet slanging match.

Of course, as you so aptly pointed out, the governmental issues are just a tiny, tiny fraction of what makes a marriage. Do you really think people would stop getting married if the government didn't recognize it?

Have you ever heard of a tradition called "jumping the broom"? When many US states still allowed slavery, it was illegal for slaves to marry. And yet they did - recognition or not. Because they were not allowed an actual wedding ceremony, they held their own celebration, and the couple getting married would jump over a broom to signify their union. From then on out, they considered themselves married, as did the rest of the slaves. Many black couples in the US still jump the broom at their weddings, to signify this heritage.


I agree with Shoo Flee, in that, instead of establishing marriage equality (which I strongly support because it's better than what we have now), we should probably use this chance to just abolish marriage entirely. It oppresses women, children, and non-christians, and it puts moral judgments on our Constitutional right to have sex when we feel like it, which violates the First Amendment, which requires the separation of church and state.

Huh? Are you just making things up? How does legal marriage oppress women, children, or non-Christians? And how does it put moral judgements on anything? There is no law stating that a person who is married cannot have extramarital sex - and many couples do so. And, since legal marriage is granted separately from any religious requirements, how can it be said to violate the 1st Amendment?

So are whites, right?
And men?
And rich people?no just hetero's

we need marriage
Even if that were true (and it isn't) why must the government be involved with it?
It oppresses women, children, and non-christians, and it puts moral judgments on our Constitutional right to have sex when we feel like it, which violates the First Amendment, which requires the separation of church and state.
What? The only thing marriage opresses is men. No man should ever get married.

What? The only thing marriage opresses is men. No man should ever get married.
awww did you have a bad break up if so suck it up wuss

awww did you have a bad break up if so suck it up wuss
Ah, no.
I just think alimony is a crock and can't stand how divorce courts favor women (pre-nups can get thrown out, not there often is one).
It's one of the worst financial decisions a man can make.
Even if he does get off without paying any alimony, the likely divorce will wreck his credit.

If you don't wish to get married,
If you think divorce is an option,
If you don't intend on staying with someone the rest of your life,
If marriage to you is a super-promise ring,
If marriage to you is two people sharing the same roof,
If the marriage will not ever be your new identity (versus I),
If marriage to you is obsolete and just a formality:
Please, don't get married.
It's not worth it on multiple fronts: emotional, financial, and societal. I still care about marriage and its roots in our society, as well as the continuing family bond. If you don't, that is fine with me but please, just don't get married. Not participating will be your strongest protest.

Ah, no.
I just think alimony is a crock and can't stand how divorce courts favor women (pre-nups can get thrown out, not there often is one).
It's one of the worst financial decisions a man can make.
Even if he does get off without paying any alimony, the likely divorce will wreck his credit.

Sorry dude, after seeing what my old man did to us when he ran out. You don't get any support from me on that one......

Maybe we need to rethink the benefits, and how they are applied.

I'm stealing this from all the way back on the first page, because it's a very succinct and telling implied question, which I agree with and would elaborate upon. We need to rethink the legal benefits of marriage, and the reason behind them, and especially any reason some people should recieve those benefits and not others.

And while I've seen and read all of many threads on these boards debating gay marriage, the state of marriage as a legal contract, it's original purpose, etc., I haven't seen anything like a factual, unarguable statement of the -purpose- behind the legal benefits of marriage and the reasoning behind who they should and should not apply to.

I'm fairly certain that's because there's no such thing as a statement of the purpose behind the governments' involvement, and depending on exactly which law, in which state, county, or city (going beyond simply federal tax laws here), there are reasons ranging from the honest intention to cut married folk a needed break, to attempts at writing marital precepts of the majority religion into law, and probably a few other things that didn't occur to me.

Here's my take, though (Even though I debated this point on another thread and was met only with "Legal marriage is different from religious/social marriage" statements). While technically, any religion has a right to practice, and perform a marriage ceremony, the government is lending legality and officiality to some, but not all marriages.

What is a marriage that isn't legally recognized? According to the government, it's not a marriage at all, except when they're trying to reassure you that they're not violating your first amendment rights to your religious beliefs (I use the term here because marriage is originally a religious concept, and even if you're a non-religious person that wants to be married, your right to be married falls under the first amendment because certainly there are religious people who would frown upon a non-religious marriage).

Back to the first question. What is the real reason behind the legal benefits and legal restrictions currently placed upon a legally recognized marriage?

I'm stealing this from all the way back on the first page, because it's a very succinct and telling implied question, which I agree with and would elaborate upon. We need to rethink the legal benefits of marriage, and the reason behind them, and especially any reason some people should recieve those benefits and not others.

And while I've seen and read all of many threads on these boards debating gay marriage, the state of marriage as a legal contract, it's original purpose, etc., I haven't seen anything like a factual, unarguable statement of the -purpose- behind the legal benefits of marriage and the reasoning behind who they should and should not apply to.

I'm fairly certain that's because there's no such thing as a statement of the purpose behind the governments' involvement, and depending on exactly which law, in which state, county, or city (going beyond simply federal tax laws here), there are reasons ranging from the honest intention to cut married folk a needed break, to attempts at writing marital precepts of the majority religion into law, and probably a few other things that didn't occur to me.

Here's my take, though (Even though I debated this point on another thread and was met only with "Legal marriage is different from religious/social marriage" statements). While technically, any religion has a right to practice, and perform a marriage ceremony, the government is lending legality and officiality to some, but not all marriages.

What is a marriage that isn't legally recognized? According to the government, it's not a marriage at all, except when they're trying to reassure you that they're not violating your first amendment rights to your religious beliefs (I use the term here because marriage is originally a religious concept, and even if you're a non-religious person that wants to be married, your right to be married falls under the first amendment because certainly there are religious people who would frown upon a non-religious marriage).

Back to the first question. What is the real reason behind the legal benefits and legal restrictions currently placed upon a legally recognized marriage?
That, my friend, is exactly the question I asked. I tried to resolve it by saying that it's intended to promote the growth of and protect families, but I was attacked by people who took my argument out of context and refused to read any of my defenses against their arguments, while only a few gave an alternative reasoning behind the institution. The most convincing argument I heard was that marriage exists in order to protect citizens by allowing them to become interdependent on one another, and therefore, more stable, and to cleanly transfer property and other forms of inheritance between people. The restrictions currently in place exist due to tradition and to prevent ridiculous excess (polygamy).

It should not be "Should gays be allowed to marry?", but rather "Why is the government deciding who is allowed to get married?"

I suggest we remove government from the equation entirely.

BRILLIANT!

In Europe there are nations (Italy like) where the divorce is considered a tragic choice and the traditional family a big value. Sorry, but for our point of wiev, your society seems to prefers to surrender to this social phenomena , instead to adopt corrective measures, and that in name of a liberalism absolutely crazy!

It does vary by country, the UK is less in thrall to the cult of the individual than the US but more so than most of the rest of Europe. An awful lot of this comes down to the pursuit of individual happiness which sounds good as rhetoric but as evidenced by decades of science and millenia of thoughtful philosophy it is self defeating when applied to highly social species such as Homo Sapiens.

The things that genuinely do make people happier seem to be deeply untrendy and even the subject of scorn in some circles (including some who post to this thread); marriage, religion, showing gratitude, optimism. Yet the scientific evidence that these things work is clear. Liberalism per se is not the problem, it is a particular form of unenlightened liberalism that revels in its own cleverness and rhetoric rather than spending a little more time reflecting on the reality of human nature.

People get married to rob the government for social care and services. It's not based upon children. So until it's fixed, I don't want the government to give social care to those who don't have children. And gays have a higher percentage for STD's than straights. So they're pretty much gonna milk the government. But government fundings for marriage should only be spent on the children and not for the parents own personal benefits.

It's legal for two fags or dykes to get married, just not under the government.

People get married to rob the government for social care and services. It's not based upon children. So until it's fixed, I don't want the government to give social care to those who don't have children. And gays have a higher percentage for STD's than straights. So they're pretty much gonna milk the government. But government fundings for marriage should only be spent on the children and not for the parents own personal benefits.

It's legal for two fags or dykes to get married, just not under the government.

Umm... FYI, that is pretty much only because anal sex rips intestinal tissue, making the transmission of STDs easier.

Umm... FYI, that is pretty much only because anal sex rips intestinal tissue, making the transmission of STDs easier.
thanks for the information, im sure it'll come in handy someday. but it's not my problem they have STD's, and it's not the governments either, it's only not their fault if they were raped.

But I can say to all the gays out there, No I won't let you get married until the social system is changed.

People get married to rob the government for social care and services. It's not based upon children. So until it's fixed, I don't want the government to give social care to those who don't have children. And gays have a higher percentage for STD's than straights. So they're pretty much gonna milk the government. But government fundings for marriage should only be spent on the children and not for the parents own personal benefits.

It's legal for two fags or dykes to get married, just not under the government.
I'd like to see a source for this. It's actually very difficult to get accurate figures on STIs in general because a lot of people can have an infection and not know. Not to mention that when someone gets treated for an STI they are under no obligation to tell the doctor/nurse/clinic etc what their sexuality is, linking STIs to sexuality is even more tricky.

Considering that 1/3 people under 24 who are sexually active have had an STI and only 1/10 people practice gay sex, I'd say there is room for debate on your assertion.

And gays have a higher percentage for STD's than straights.
Gay MEN have higher rates of STD infection. And hetero MEN have higher rates than hetero women. And gay WOMEN have the lowest rates of all.

Sounds like you just made a great argument for why MEN should not be permitted to get married.

People get married to rob the government for social care and services. It's not based upon children. So until it's fixed, I don't want the government to give social care to those who don't have children. And gays have a higher percentage for STD's than straights. So they're pretty much gonna milk the government. But government fundings for marriage should only be spent on the children and not for the parents own personal benefits.

It's legal for two fags or dykes to get married, just not under the government.

So lesbians should have more rights than gays (men) 'cause they have a lower risk to have STD? Very fair!

Because we don't all live as individuals. Some of us live as individuals within a relationship in which we merge our lives to the point that they are largely indistinguishable.
Mmm, institutionalized codependence...marriage is a beautiful thing...

Ok, lets listen to our religious traditions shall we? In all Christian religions they follow the bible. So lets look at what the bible states about other things that we should do......


Exodus 21:7 states that we can sell our daughters into slavery.
Lev 15:19-24 no man is allowed contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness, so we should make women stay home and locked in their rooms during this time.
Lev 25:44 states that we can own slaves so long as they are from neighboring countries....so for those of us in america we can own canadian, and mexican slaves.
Exodus 35:2 clearly states that anyone working on the sabbath should be put to death. Wow, just think of all those people that work on sundays.
Lev 11:6-8 states that even touching the skin of a pig makes one unclean, so there goes the football games.
Lev 11:10 says that eating unclean animals such as all shellfish, and any pork is an abomination to the lord. I guess their goes the seafood and pork industries.


So, my question is this....if we don't even think to follow those laws stated in the bible, then why do people bring up the bible during all homosexual topics?
I mean you can't just pick and chose what GOD himself wants us to follow. If these LAWS of GOD change, then why not the others?
So I think this nullifies any and all accusations about how god doesn't like it.

Ok, lets listen to our religious traditions shall we?
-clip- I mean you can't just pick and chose what GOD himself wants us to follow. If these LAWS of GOD change, then why not the others?
So I think this nullifies any and all accusations about how god doesn't like it.
Your passage references are correct, but you fail to include the new covenant with the Lord. Since it comes from the same source (God) and he redeems us through his Son, our Lord, he (God) changed the 'rules', not mankind. Listen... anyone who tells you that homosexuality is a sin is telling the truth BUT don't pay attention to anyone who implies or states that this sin is unforgivable, or that God doesn't love a homosexual. It just simply isn't true. God forgives all people, and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," not just any particular type of people.

Your passage references are correct, but you fail to include the new covenant with the Lord.

If the New Covenant with the Lord got rid of all the OT rules, then why was Paul so bent on one?

Listen... anyone who tells you that homosexuality is a sin is telling the truth

Really? Just like menstruation? Or sweating? I'm so glad that things that are completely beyond the control of a person are "sins". It's good to know that free will has nothign to do with it.

Here's my answer to the question of ages:





















































I don't care.

Here's my answer to the question of ages:





















































I don't care.

People get married to rob the government for social care and services. It's not based upon children. So until it's fixed, I don't want the government to give social care to those who don't have children. And gays have a higher percentage for STD's than straights. So they're pretty much gonna milk the government. But government fundings for marriage should only be spent on the children and not for the parents own personal benefits.

It's legal for two fags or dykes to get married, just not under the government.

The above represents a rather serious misunderstanding of the way in which our government allocates marriage benefits. First and foremost, a great deal of the benefits are based around providing for children. The benefits given to married couples that do not yet have children are given with the oft-stated purpose of making it easier for couples to bring new progeny into the world, as was stated in the now-landmark case of Goodridge et al vs. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the so-called Massachusetts Gay Marriage case. As the Court correctly held in that case, however, these benefits do not actually encourage procreation at all, so that a rethinking of benefit allocation is in fact long overdue, as has been stated several times in this thread.
The major fallacy of the above-quoted piece, though, is that the author seems to believe that medical benefits have something to do with getting married. A person with STD's gets treated because they have health insurance, not because they are married. I'm sorry to tell you this, Bul-Katho, but you are severely misinformed, and possibly delusional. I recommend taking a High School-level civics class immediately, in which you shall no doubt learn that prescription drug benefits and doctors visits are not paid for in relation to one's marital status. You will also learn that the phrases "fags" and "dykes" are extremely offensive to gays and lesbians. After that, I reccommend that you take an English class and improve your grammar and punctuation, so that you won't have to suffer the embarassment of a fag like me calling you illiterate ever again. :)

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1 ) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. And lets not talk of all those animal that chose to be gay. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

2 ) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3 ) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4 ) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5 ) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage, Bachelorette, The Bachelor, and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire would be destroyed.

6 ) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7 ) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8 )Cool Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9 ) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10 ) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. (I, myself, am working up the courage to pop the question to my toaster, she's hot <3)

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

For the entire list: :fluffle:

I'd sig it, but it's too long, so all you get is this lousy fluffle. ;)

Sorry dude, after seeing what my old man did to us when he ran out. You don't get any support from me on that one......
Child support is not the same thing as alimony.

So basicly you wan't to make marriage less meaningful.



Marrage means something anyway?


I don't buy that sanctity of marrage bullshit. If there was such a thing, then men and women wouldn't cheat on their spouses. End of story.

For the entire list: :fluffle:

I'd sig it, but it's too long, so all you get is this lousy fluffle. ;)

I'll second that.

I'll second that.

Here here!

I don't buy that sanctity of marrage bullshit. If there was such a thing, then men and women wouldn't cheat on their spouses. End of story.
The sacredness of a union doesn't necessarily protect it from cheating. I'm perfectly willing to accept that some people cheat even when they deeply believe their union is sacred. People are silly that way.

Your passage references are correct, but you fail to include the new covenant with the Lord. Since it comes from the same source (God) and he redeems us through his Son, our Lord, he (God) changed the 'rules', not mankind. Listen... anyone who tells you that homosexuality is a sin is telling the truth BUT don't pay attention to anyone who implies or states that this sin is unforgivable, or that God doesn't love a homosexual. It just simply isn't true. God forgives all people, and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," not just any particular type of people.


So who decided which OT rules would be kept and which would be tossed?

So who decided which OT rules would be kept and which would be tossed?
Here's how it works:

Say that you are a guy who hates gays, but loves wearing clothes of mixed fabrics. Well, in that case, you sign up for the Christian denomination that likes the Leviticus passage about hating fags, but doesn't follow the one about clothing made from mixed fabrics. Ta-da! God hates fags, but you're still allowed to sport around in your cotton-poly blends!

Here's how it works:

Say that you are a guy who hates gays, but loves wearing clothes of mixed fabrics. Well, in that case, you sign up for the Christian denomination that likes the Leviticus passage about hating fags, but doesn't follow the one about clothing made from mixed fabrics. Ta-da! God hates fags, but you're still allowed to sport around in your cotton-poly blends!

Ah. So it's sorta like being at a buffet!!! Take what you want, leave what you don't.

Ah. So it's sorta like being at a buffet!!! Take what you want, leave what you don't.
Pretty much, yeah. The only wrinkle is that there are some annoying folks who will get on your case for being a "bigot," or for not "reading" the "Word of God," or for using "bad translations," or for "being a total dickhead." But those people are nit-pickers and stupid killjoys. What do they know.

Pretty much, yeah. The only wrinkle is that there are some annoying folks who will get on your case for being a "bigot," or for not "reading" the "Word of God," or for using "bad translations," or for "being a total dickhead." But those people are nit-pickers and stupid killjoys. What do they know.

Which is easily solved by making the TOS include a little disclaimer saying that never having voted disqualifies you from stating your opinion if it disparages other posters. That takes care of 85% of those who are nit-pickers, killjoys, and tossers.

:headbang:

is this still going?

:headbang:

is this still going?

This topic never dies. It merely gets a new thread every 6 hours.

well then the post title itself is flawed and it should have been pulled

there are no ANSWERS in a debate - only rebutal

and opinions, obsesly arogant & superficial homophobic rants on which form of moral people should live by

If i wanted to live in a dictatorship, i'd live in my nation state! (a girl can dream)

well then the post title itself is flawed and it should have been pulled

there are no ANSWERS in a debate - only rebutal

and opinions, obsesly arogant & superficial homophobic rants on which form of moral people should live by

If i wanted to live in a dictatorship, i'd live in my nation state! (a girl can dream)

The question that is constantly NOT raised, is the question of public authority.

(Take away the adjectives, and we may arrive at the facts.

The answers as to what marriage is, are found in the lawbooks.

And not in the bible, and not in some diversity-initiative-sheet either.)

The question that is constantly NOT raised, is the question of public authority.

(Take away the adjectives, and we may arrive at the facts.

The answers as to what marriage is, are found in the lawbooks.

And not in the bible, and not in some diversity-initiative-sheet either.)

easy solved then

they should live together for 6 months and day and by default be eligable for common law marriage - fuck the religious side of it, who cares

easy solved then

they should live together for 6 months and day and by default be eligable for common law marriage - fuck the religious side of it, who cares

*grin* I think I mentioned something like that - but then, I suppose I am married several times - to different men.#


*edit* telegram thingie is burping...

*grin* I think I mentioned something like that - but then, I suppose I am married several times - to different men.#


*edit* telegram thingie is burping...

*giggle*

I don't buy that sanctity of marrage bullshit. If there was such a thing, then men and women wouldn't cheat on their spouses. End of story.

Yeah, and if there was a such thing as honesty, people wouldn't lie, right? Therefore, there is no such thing as honesty.

just had a funny thought (funny in a sad sort of way)

Right now gay marriage is slowly (but surely) becoming legal in europe and north america.

In 50 years time President Bush the 3rd will probably launch an offensive against a <insert religion> in <insert part of world> because or the lack of freedoms given to same sex couples. It will be a reason for embargoes, negative PR, etc..

just had a funny thought (funny in a sad sort of way)

Right now gay marriage is slowly (but surely) becoming legal in europe and north america.

In 50 years time President Bush the 3rd will probably launch an offensive against a <insert religion> in <insert part of world> because or the lack of freedoms given to same sex couples. It will be a reason for embargoes, negative PR, etc..
Nah, don't worry about that kind of thing. Sure, the fundies won't be able to attack gays for much longer, but they're already gearing up for a full-on attack on atheists. The next generation will be kept busy with an endless debate over whether we should revoke marriage rights for the godless.

and maybe invade the land of the godless?

Invade the EU to save the holy vatican from the godless europeans!

Nah, don't worry about that kind of thing. Sure, the fundies won't be able to attack gays for much longer, but they're already gearing up for a full-on attack on atheists. The next generation will be kept busy with an endless debate over whether we should revoke marriage rights for the godless.

just thinking about how 50 years ago, no one cared about "how muslims treat their women", but now even "fundies" use that as an argument

Perhaps I'm a little ignorant, and there might already be something like this, but why don't they just give them something that gives the same rights of marriage (financially) but call it something else? Like, have them pronounce the fact they're a couple?

Nah, don't worry about that kind of thing. Sure, the fundies won't be able to attack gays for much longer, but they're already gearing up for a full-on attack on atheists. The next generation will be kept busy with an endless debate over whether we should revoke marriage rights for the godless.

I'll be ready *cocks shotgun*

Perhaps I'm a little ignorant, and there might already be something like this, but why don't they just give them something that gives the same rights of marriage (financially) but call it something else? Like, have them pronounce the fact they're a couple?

Because "separate but equal" is never equal.

Meanwhile, it is legally impossible to have *all* the same rights of marriage (and not all are financial) without it being the same construct - unless, of course, we are going to renegotiate quite a few treaties.

Yes, but marriage is pretty stupid in the first place. All it is is a contract saying that all of your stuff belongs to another person also, and that you have signed the rest of your life away (or at least a good portion) to live with that person. Do they really need to be married to be happy?
Offentimes it seems like marriage ruins relationships. I'm straight, but im not getting married.

Perhaps I'm a little ignorant, and there might already be something like this, but why don't they just give them something that gives the same rights of marriage (financially) but call it something else? Like, have them pronounce the fact they're a couple?

Then why not call it marriage if there is no difference?

Then why not call it marriage if there is no difference?
Because that would make the religious fundamentalists cry. And, as we all know, the feelings of religious fundamentalists are more important than anybody else's.

Perhaps I'm a little ignorant, and there might already be something like this, but why don't they just give them something that gives the same rights of marriage (financially) but call it something else? Like, have them pronounce the fact they're a couple?

so instead of marriage... butt-buddies

(southpark ref.)

Yes, but marriage is pretty stupid in the first place. All it is is a contract saying that all of your stuff belongs to another person also, and that you have signed the rest of your life away (or at least a good portion) to live with that person. Do they really need to be married to be happy?
Offentimes it seems like marriage ruins relationships. I'm straight, but im not getting married.

If that is how you look at it, you probably shouldn't ever get married.

However, for those of us who would like to make a life-long committment to someone, we would like to have the legal protections that go along with that (which include a whole lot more than "all of your stuff belongs to another person also").

Because that would make the religious fundamentalists cry. And, as we all know, the feelings of religious fundamentalists are more important than anybody else's.


They are more important than anyone elses for a very simple and pragmatic reason:
they're willing to shed blood ( in quantity ) for getting things their way.
Are you willing to shed blood for getting things your way?

Because that would make the religious fundamentalists cry. And, as we all know, the feelings of religious fundamentalists are more important than anybody else's.

Fuck them. They can cry all they want. Im sure homosexuals have been crying for alot longer, wondering if they really live in a self-proclaimed land of the free.

Yes, but marriage is pretty stupid in the first place. All it is is a contract saying that all of your stuff belongs to another person also, and that you have signed the rest of your life away (or at least a good portion) to live with that person. Do they really need to be married to be happy?
Offentimes it seems like marriage ruins relationships. I'm straight, but im not getting married.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AVAk_Gqaris&search=mann%20gegen%20mann

Imo, the church can choose whether to or not to recognize somebody's marital status, but, its the obligation of the state, if they are a Democracy where everyone is equal, to recognize marital status regardless of what the gender is of the people that are marrying. Seperation of Church and State is in the constitution for a reason, the bible is not written into the constitution.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AVAk_Gqaris&search=mann%20gegen%20mann

What is going on in this video?

Because that would make the religious fundamentalists cry. And, as we all know, the feelings of religious fundamentalists are more important than anybody else's.

Not really, I really don't care if they get married, I was just suggesting something that might be a compromise

Homosexuals have as much right to ruin their lives in a marriage as heterosexuals do.

What is going on in this video?

They're singing about how homosexuals don't have to go through all the dating crap.

actually i wonder.

if you put 100 heterosexual men on a island for a hundred years, i wonder how many would turn gay


I bet at least 60% would ! Then 15% would be in the closet fantasing about
the remaining 25% would either be blind of helping the blind :)

just had a funny thought (funny in a sad sort of way)

Right now gay marriage is slowly (but surely) becoming legal in europe and north america.

In 50 years time President Bush the 3rd will probably launch an offensive against a <insert religion> in <insert part of world> because or the lack of freedoms given to same sex couples. It will be a reason for embargoes, negative PR, etc..

nah you wont cos he will be with his Filipino lady boy wife then and in charge
;)

nah you wont cos he will be with his Filipino lady boy wife then and in charge
;)

Correction: *she* will be with *her* Filipino lady boy wife then and in charge. Bush III wil probably be a girl or transgender.

Why won't this thread DIE?!

Perhaps I'm a little ignorant, and there might already be something like this, but why don't they just give them something that gives the same rights of marriage (financially) but call it something else? Like, have them pronounce the fact they're a couple?

Well.. lets assume we are talking about something other than homosexuality. Say: lefthandedness (because skincolour is a tad bit too cliche by now). Reread your question, but assume the "them" refers to people that are lefthanded[1]. Seems a bit.. silly... agreed ?

Now let the them refer to.. lets say.. eyesight. How dare those people with glasses attempt to reduce the meaning of matrimony by claiming they have a right to marry ? Does the Bible not say that one is not allowed to come to a religious ceremony if one has an eyedefect ?[2]

Feel free to think up other ways to distinguish between groups which one could then use to deny them marriage.

[1] Since until about 100 years ago those people were considered to be possessed by the devil that is not even farfetched.
[2] Leviticus again. Quite an intruiging book.

Why won't this thread DIE?!

Why should it ? Is the discrimination over ?

Why should it ? Is the discrimination over ?

No... however, it just keeps bobbing up and down on the 1 through 5th pages... gets sort of annoying to see only every other day. I say: Sticky, or let it die...

Not really, I really don't care if they get married, I was just suggesting something that might be a compromise
It's a good compromise, except let's just swap it around. Since we're just trying to come up with a compromise, let's say that heterosexuals can't use the word "marriage" any more. I mean, they've gotten to use it for quite a while, and they haven't been doing a very good job of taking it seriously, so let's let homosexuals use it for a bit and see if they can do better. Heterosexuals can be "civil unioned" or whatever, with all the same rights as marriage, they just can't call it "marriage."

Can anybody see how insulting this is?

They are more important than anyone elses for a very simple and pragmatic reason:
they're willing to shed blood ( in quantity ) for getting things their way.
Are you willing to shed blood for getting things your way?
Blah blah blah. Little boys throwing down in the playyard. I'm unimpressed by this kind of nonsense. If some silly little children want to shed blood over trivialities, then we'll just buy them all Halo 2 and let them go play.

Why won't this thread DIE?!

Partially because people keep posting in it, complaining about the fact it won't drop off the page somehow. :rolleyes:

It's a good compromise, except let's just swap it around. Since we're just trying to come up with a compromise, let's say that heterosexuals can't use the word "marriage" any more. I mean, they've gotten to use it for quite a while, and they haven't been doing a very good job of taking it seriously, so let's let homosexuals use it for a bit and see if they can do better. Heterosexuals can be "civil unioned" or whatever, with all the same rights as marriage, they just can't call it "marriage."

Can anybody see how insulting this is?


I can't, I think it's a good idea.
And once again, we should give black people the same rights as white people, but we should call it something else than 'human rights' to avoid offending the KKK. I mean, they might go around shedding blood if we call it anything other than '****** rights'.

*cough*

They are more important than anyone elses for a very simple and pragmatic reason:
they're willing to shed blood ( in quantity ) for getting things their way.
Are you willing to shed blood for getting things your way?

Exactly, that's why muslim fundamentalists rule the world, and we all agree this is a good thing.
All moral and decent cavemen know the right to rule is determined by who can smash other cavemen skulls the best.

I can't, I think it's a good idea.
And once again, we should give black people the same rights as white people, but we should call it something else than 'human rights' to avoid offending the KKK. I mean, they might go around shedding blood if we call it anything other than '****** rights'.

*cough*
This is much like how "women's rights" are set off as a special case situation, instead of simply being regarded as "human rights" or "civil rights." Because, see, women aren't full human beings, nor do they automatically get to enjoy the same civil rights as real people, so that's why they have a special subset of rights (which are much more easily violated).

I can't, I think it's a good idea.
And once again, we should give black people the same rights as white people, but we should call it something else than 'human rights' to avoid offending the KKK. I mean, they might go around shedding blood if we call it anything other than '****** rights'.

*cough*

now now, can't use the N word. They won't like that.

for whites it can be human rights, for blacks... welfare.

answer: let them move to france lol