NationStates Jolt Archive

Because other people getting married affects you so, so much. You're breaking my heart, honey.

It has become aparent that this issue needs to be addressed. Now I'm not trying to do this incure the wrath of bleeding-hearts, I'm doing this for the betterment of all our understanding, and the settling of this issue.

Firstly I am not pregiduce towards the gays. Legally there is no sense in trying to police there very personal lives. However, marriage is a different story.

Marriage is the binding of two souls before God to go and fullfill his commandment to populate the Earth. This is a very tactful way of saying to condone intercourse. Now I ask you, exactly how fruitful are to homosexuals going to be? Therefore, firstly what purpose is there in granting them marriage?

Now your going to bring up legal rights, yadayadayada. Alright, fair enough, grant them the legal rights, give it some other name. Civil union, or soulmating, frankly, as long as it does not attack other current belief systems, we're all honky-dory.

Or better yet, this is only an idea. Why not completely and utterly remove the right of marriage from the hands of the government. What does it give that can't be fullfilled in a will? That way, the gays can go make some voodoo church where they can have their marriage and we can have ours.

Also, we must take into acount that homosexuals are more likely to transfer STDs. Now I know your going to ask for "the burden of proof", so see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_ISIS_Survey

See the second set of statistics.
Now yes this is frightening, but the upright have no need to fear.

What really bothers me is when an individual is forced to participate in such affairs. There was a photographer in Alberta who got sued for not taking pictures at a gay wedding for example. And time and time again clergy get harrased for not carrying them out. This is even worse then the legalizations themselves.

I hope you will accept one of my compromises. For all our sakes.

Also, we must take into acount that homosexuals are more likely to transfer STDs. Now I know your going to ask for "the burden of proof", so see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_ISIS_Survey

See the second set of statistics.
Now yes this is frightening, but the upright have no need to fear.



You cited a great study there -

From the article:

Groth and other psychologists filed a complaint against Cameron to the American Psychological Association. In 1983 an investigation was launched, the results of which concluded that Cameron had breached ethics by conducting studies which employed unsound methods in order to secure an intentionally skewed result. The investigating committee also discovered that Cameron had falsely been using the names of other psychologists as having supported his findings. For this breach of ethics, Cameron was expelled from the APA. Later, Cameron would claim that he had resigned, but his former peers were quick to point out that members under investigation cannot resign.

I have zero problem with gay marriage. If two people want to make that commitment, let them. I'm sure gay mariages will result in as much misery as heterosexual marriages do. ;)

Oh, not this crap again. Well, somebody get the popcorn.

Why do you care who gets married to who?

It doesn't effect your life in any way.




I read your post up until you said the word 'God'

At this point, I'm going to tell you to shut the fuck up in as polite a manner as possible.

Give me one good reason that your belief in God should dictate the life of anyone but you.

Now I'm not trying to do this incure the wrath of bleeding-hearts, I'm doing this for the betterment of all our understanding, and the settling of this issue.

Firstly I am not pregiduce towards the gays.
Oh, this should be good...

*shaking my head*

would you be in favor of allowing same sex couples to get married by a justice of the peace or in churches that support the concept of gay marriage, leaving those churches that find it against god's law free to deny any couple the chance to get married in their church?

Marriage is the binding of two souls before God to go and fullfill his commandment to populate the Earth.

No, it isn't. And I don't care about your deity.

Now your going to bring up legal rights, yadayadayada. Alright, fair enough, grant them the legal rights, give it some other name. Civil union, or soulmating, frankly, as long as it does not attack other current belief systems, we're all honky-dory.

"Ah, discriminate against them because of my fragile sensibilities." No, sorry, not gonna buy that.

Also, we must take into acount that homosexuals are more likely to transfer STDs. Now I know your going to ask for "the burden of proof", so see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_ISIS_Survey

See the second set of statistics.
Now yes this is frightening, but the upright have no need to fear.

You don't see the silliness in denying access to something which furthers monogamy when invoking consequences of lack thereof? Right...

In any case, you apparently didn't read your own source (which is debunked in your own source for it):

"Groth and other psychologists filed a complaint against Cameron to the American Psychological Association. In 1983 an investigation was launched, the results of which concluded that Cameron had breached ethics by conducting studies which employed unsound methods in order to secure an intentionally skewed result. The investigating committee also discovered that Cameron had falsely been using the names of other psychologists as having supported his findings. For this breach of ethics, Cameron was expelled from the APA. Later, Cameron would claim that he had resigned, but his former peers were quick to point out that members under investigation cannot resign."

What really bothers me is when an individual is forced to participate in such affairs. There was a photographer in Alberta who got sued for not taking pictures at a gay wedding for example. And time and time again clergy get harrased for not carrying them out. This is even worse then the legalizations themselves.

Religion is not an excuse for discrimination. All businesses operate at the behest of society; what if those you mention had discriminated not against fags but against "niggers"? I doubt you'd be all so forgiving and permissive.

I hope you will accept one of my compromises. For all our sakes.

No, what you mean is for your sake. And, no, there is no compromising with bigotry.

Ugh.

Marriage isn't always about God. Atheists get married too.

I made a post and it disappered. Odd... :confused:

Booooring!

Marriage is the binding of two souls before God to go and fullfill his commandment to populate the Earth.

No, it's a legal contract, that, in effect, states that all parties involved have custody over each other. And if you look into the past, you'll find that it's never been anything more than that. It's been less at times, but not more. The practice of priests marrying people only came into effect because they were the majority of the literate people around in the Middle Ages.

God doesn't exist. Therefore marriage is meaningless. The state should ensure that homosexual couples are treated the same as heterosexual couples. The end.

Or better yet, this is only an idea. Why not completely and utterly remove the right of marriage from the hands of the government. What does it give that can't be fullfilled in a will? That way, the gays can go make some voodoo church where they can have their marriage and we can have ours.

THis is just about the only part of your post that I agreed with. I think everyone should get civil unions, and then they can add whatever religious spin they want to it within their own religious communities.

THis is just about the only part of your post that I agreed with. I think everyone should get civil unions, and then they can add whatever religious spin they want to it within their own religious communities.

I agree 100%.

I personally prefer the idea of having separate civil and religious marriages, similar to the system used in Germany.

Civil marriages (could also be termed "civil unions", hereby sidestepping the issue of "gay marriage" entirely), would be performed by a justice of the peace for any couple (and, given sufficient time, polygamous/polyandrous relationships) who filled out the necessary forms and showed up at the courthouse. Crucially, a civil marriage would become the new requirement for gaining the current benefits of marriage (joint tax returns, joint ownership, etc.)

Religious marriages would fall outside governmental jurisdiction unless their terms violated federal law. They would be performed by religious officials, and would not be subject to federal requirements (for instance, provisions for divorce would not be required). The flip side is that these marriages would have no legal force whatsoever.

The upside: the current uproar over gay marriage would be quelled (especially if the civil union terminology is used), religious organizations can hold marriages without having to worry about government regulations (and vice versa). The downside: not sure how this idea would go over in the general populace, especially among conservatives.

They should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the state, but the church shouldnt be forced into letting gays get married because the church is a private institution with its own rules.

Also, the guy who started this post is a faggot loser

Also, the guy who started this post is a faggot loser
:confused: Irony, I hope...

Firstly, by God here I mean, Allah, Yewah, Sallah, whatever diety underwhich you reside. As far as athiest marriages goes, they're taking advantage of the system. The legal rights which marraige upholds, as I already said, I do not care about. Its the name, and the fact that people are forced to uphold it.

How does it effect me?
1. Taxes and Health Care, generally having to see people medically suffer
2. The inringment on a spiritual advisors morality
3. The infringement upon the right of a buisiness to deny service at any time to any one, for any reason.
4. The end of the sanctity of my cause. Just because all that is holy is profaned doesn't mean I have to sit here and watch it.

They should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the state, but the church shouldnt be forced into letting gays get married because the church is a private institution with its own rules.

We don't let private institutions off the hook for discrimination in other cases, so I see no reason for it in this one.

Also, the guy who started this post is a faggot

Proudly so.

How does it effect me?
1. Taxes and Health Care, generally having to see people medically suffer
2. The inringment on a spiritual advisors morality
3. The infringement upon the right of a buisiness to deny service at any time to any one, for any reason.
4. The end of the sanctity of my cause. Just because all that is holy is profaned doesn't mean I have to sit here and watch it.

You're right. Ban interracial marriage now!

Also, the guy who started this post is a faggot loser

truly, you are a wordsmith the likes of which this planet has never seen.

the poetry of your wit astounds me.

[/good humored sarcasm]

The end of the sanctity of my cause. Just because all that is holy is profaned doesn't mean I have to sit here and watch it.

Nor does it mean that we have to give a shit.

Also, the guy who started this post is a faggot loser

...Did you just insult a bigot by using a derogatory slur of the very people he discriminates against?

That is another issue, and has little relevance to the information provided there.

That is another issue, and has little relevance to the information provided there.

What is?

It has become aparent that this issue needs to be addressed. Now I'm not trying to do this incure the wrath of bleeding-hearts, I'm doing this for the betterment of all our understanding, and the settling of this issue. What amazing powers do you ascribe to yourself to even make a statement like this? This issue will NEVER be settled while there are still bigots, like yourself, who insist on saying things like, "I am not prejudiced towards THE gays BUT..."

You're not fooling anyone. Are you even fooling yourself? Yes, yes you are prejudiced, and in your mind, the issue has already been settled. So why discuss it at all I wonder?

And how many more fucking red-necked, homophobic Albertans do we need on NS to sully the name of my home province? I can only do so much damage control here people...

That is another issue, and has little relevance to the information provided there.

Ah, so discrimination you don't like is bad, but discrimination you like is good? Sure...

I have nothing against the gays as long as they don't take away marriage. What is prejudice there?

what i think is pretty annoying is that whenever someone says they dont like gay marriage, people always ask "why". well, does it matter why? and then there are those who say "oh, you just need to get in touch with your inner homosexual". uh... why is that? because they have an opinion on something...?
next, if everybody was a homosexual, the human race would end; there would be no reproduction and no babies. last, marriage = 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. husband and wife... not husband and husband, and not wife and wife. now, i really dont care what you gays and lesbians do with your lives, just dont bother me with it (ie gay parades, gay rallies, gay marches, etc) now i know someone is going to say that i am "homophobic" because those are the typical responses of anybody who responds to a remark against gay marriage. bring on the flames! (as in post flames, not hell flames...)

You're right. Ban interracial marriage now!

No we need to ban atheist marriage. They're taking advantage of the system.

Ah, so discrimination you don't like is bad, but discrimination you like is good? Sure...


What is discrimination here. Racial marriages can bear fruit, gay ones cannot.

I have nothing against the gays as long as they don't take away marriage. What is prejudice there?

"take away"

HA!


alright folks, show's over.

troll here, nothing more to see.

I have nothing against the gays as long as they don't take away marriage. What is prejudice there?

"I have nothing against black people as long as they don't take my drinking fountain away, or demand to be treated like me."

I have nothing against the gays as long as they don't take away marriage. What is prejudice there?

I have nothing against the blacks as long as they don't take away marriage. What is the prejudice there?


New clothes, same man.

What is discrimination here. Racial marriages can bear fruit, gay ones cannot.

so infertile couples should not marry?

what about people too old to bear children? should their marriages be banned as well?

What is discrimination here. Racial marriages can bear fruit, gay ones cannot.

And that's why post-menopausal women and the sterile are banned from ever getting married.

"I have nothing against black people as long as they don't take my drinking fountain away, or demand to be treated like me."

I said nothing about treating them differently. Assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman, I suppose they can have it.

God doesn't exist. Therefore marriage is meaningless. The state should ensure that homosexual couples are treated the same as heterosexual couples. The end.
QFT.

I said nothing about treating them differently. Assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman, I suppose they can have it.

They are denied the right to marry the person they love.

. As far as athiest marriages goes, they're taking advantage of the system.Um, you do realise that Albertan marriages are not in fact all religious matters, don't you? You seem to have the odd belief that marriage is a religious institution.



The legal rights which marraige upholds, as I already said, I do not care about. Its the name, and the fact that people are forced to uphold it.

How does it effect me?
1. Taxes and Health Care, generally having to see people medically suffer
2. The inringment on a spiritual advisors morality
3. The infringement upon the right of a buisiness to deny service at any time to any one, for any reason.
4. The end of the sanctity of my cause. Just because all that is holy is profaned doesn't mean I have to sit here and watch it.

You'll have to be more specific. So you claim that you don't care about the legal rights married couples have (rights and responsibilities actually, since it's not all a bowl of jelly). Nontheless, you claim that marriage, absent legal rights, somehow will affect you via taxes and health care? Married couples, married GAY couples max your taxes go up and health care costs rise? You're smoking that fine, BC bud, aren't you?

The bulk of the rest of your argument is the belief that discrimination under the guise of what is holy is not only good, but BEST. Sorry...what were you saying earlier about a lack of prejudice?

.
4. The end of the sanctity of my cause. Just because all that is holy is profaned doesn't mean I have to sit here and watch it.

soooooo

are you against divorce since THAT is the way that the sanctity of marriage is profaned every day by straight couples?

"take away"

HA!


alright folks, show's over.

troll here, nothing more to see.
Yeah, Here have an epiphany. Gay and Straight people will both be allowed to get married.

I said nothing about treating them differently.

Yes, you did. You want gay people not to be able to get married, but straight people to be able to get married. Newsflash: that is treating people differently.

Or better yet, this is only an idea. Why not completely and utterly remove the right of marriage from the hands of the government. What does it give that can't be fullfilled in a will? That way, the gays can go make some voodoo church where they can have their marriage and we can have ours.


Aside from the voodoo church bit, this is the only sensible thing I could get from that rant and i've suggested as much in the past. Let people marry whichever consenting adult they wish without any governmental interference or recognition of any sort and we're all happy.

I have nothing against the gays as long as they don't take away marriage. What is prejudice there?

I'd almost have you pegged (hahaha, Dan Savage style) as a troll, except that you come from Alberta, and I know that this kind of idiocy is rampant here.

Gays getting married take away marriage from non-gays? How exactly?

What is discrimination here. Racial marriages can bear fruit, gay ones cannot.

So...couples that can not have children, or choose not to, should have their marriages revoked? How long should that take, do you figure? Should fruit be borne within the first three years, maybe? Or do you give them longer?

Gays getting married take away marriage from non-gays? How exactly?

See, there's only a limited number of marriages. Let the gays get married and we'll have to take marriages away from nice, God-fearing, heterosexual couples to keep up with the demand.

Um, you do realise that Albertan marriages are not in fact all religious matters, don't you? You seem to have the odd belief that marriage is a religious institution.



You'll have to be more specific. So you claim that you don't care about the legal rights married couples have (rights and responsibilities actually, since it's not all a bowl of jelly). Nontheless, you claim that marriage, absent legal rights, somehow will affect you via taxes and health care? Married couples, married GAY couples max your taxes go up and health care costs rise? You're smoking that fine, BC bud, aren't you?

The bulk of the rest of your argument is the belief that discrimination under the guise of what is holy is not only good, but BEST. Sorry...what were you saying earlier about a lack of prejudice?


No, I am saying that gay intercourse is unholy. We don't need to treat the people differently. As far as BC bud goes, only growing it, and when it comes to taxes I am refferring to paying for health care. Having to pay to treate the STDs they cause.

No, I am saying that gay intercourse is unholy. We don't need to treat the people differently. As far as BC bud goes, only growing it, and when it comes to taxes I am refferring to paying for health care. Having to pay to treate the STDs they cause.

And this ends any hope that this thread was serious.

I came here seeking compromise and understanding, but it is apparent free speech is no longer allowed.

No, I am saying that gay intercourse is unholy.
So is lobster.

when it comes to taxes I am refferring to paying for health care. Having to pay to treate the STDs they cause.
Blame straight people for the STDs, they get more of them and at a higher frequency, since they use protection far less often.

I came here seeking compromise and understanding, but it is apparent free speech is no longer allowed.

Free speech is allowed. That's why we can disagree with you.

.

Firstly I am not pregiduce towards the gays..

haha

.Marriage is the binding of two souls before God to go and fullfill his commandment to populate the Earth. This is a very tactful way of saying to condone intercourse. Now I ask you, exactly how fruitful are to homosexuals going to be? Therefore, firstly what purpose is there in granting them marriage?

so marriage has nothing to do with legal standings and it should illegal for infertile couples to marry since they can't "populate the earth"....go on...i'm listening...

Now your going to bring up legal rights, yadayadayada. Alright, fair enough, grant them the legal rights, give it some other name. Civil union, or soulmating, frankly, as long as it does not attack other current belief systems, we're all honky-dory.

and we still own slaves....women are still property of their fathers/husbands....because we ALL know that society can NOT adapt (which would explain why that whole automoblie/telephone/penicillin thing never worked out...)


Also, we must take into acount that homosexuals are more likely to transfer STDs. Now I know your going to ask for "the burden of proof", so see here:


Now yes this is frightening, but the upright have no need to fear.

are you implying that if you are straight that you will not get an STD? It's not homosexuals that transmit diseases, it's ANYONE with mutiple sex partners

I came here seeking compromise and understanding, but it is apparent free speech is no longer allowed.

you have the right to say whatever you want.


we have the right to mock you for it.



remember this:

just because you can form an opinion doesn't automatically mean that the opinion you've formed is a sensible one, or should be treated in any special way.

No, I am saying that gay intercourse is unholy. We don't need to treat the people differently. As far as BC bud goes, only growing it, and when it comes to taxes I am refferring to paying for health care. Having to pay to treate the STDs they cause.

Listen, if indeed you are a troll, you are a sloppy one. Don't play it too hard to swallow, or you'll find yourself gone before you can really develop your true, obnoxious potential. Good advice here, we see them come and go, and it's the ones who trainwreck through that just never manage to stick around.

So, this is in fact NOT about marriage, but rather about gay sex. Why didn't you say so to begin with? What...gays don't have sex out of wedlock? Are they in chastity belts in the meantime? Come on now.

And the STDs thing...married people tend to spread a lot less of those, regardless of their sexual orientation. So, in the interests of cutting down on what are actually now referred to as Sexually Transmitted Infections, not STDs, you'd probably want to support marriage across the board. But you won't. You just threw that in there to make it look like there was anything to your argument beyond 'gay sex is icky'.

and when it comes to taxes I am refferring to paying for health care. Having to pay to treate the STDs they cause.

Wow. If you were American you would have an excuse but sex education in Canada is good.

Being gay does not spread AIDS. Having unprotected sex with an infected partner does. If you are married to someone you will likely know whether they have AIDS or not and thus take percautions.

So is lobster.


Blame straight people for the STDs, they get more of them and at a higher frequency, since they use protection far less often.


I'll need stats on that, I've already provided mine.

I came here seeking compromise and understanding, but it is apparent free speech is no longer allowed.

Free speech means you get to say what you want. It doesn't mean you get to say it without others telling you what they think of what you just said.

And this ends any hope that this thread was serious.

Yeah, I know...a little too much, too fast. If he'd worked his way into it, it would've been a bit more believable.

I came here seeking compromise and understanding, but it is apparent free speech is no longer allowed.

No one is banning you or preventing you from talking. Free speak all you want...we'll be on you like stink on shit.

As for compromise...we've already ascertained that your position is really about gay sex...and there is not likely going to be ANY compromising of your opinion on that. I certainly am not going to start thinking it's bad just to please you.

I'll need stats on that, I've already provided mine.

As to lobster: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

AS to stats, your stats were debunked in the wiki you used to give them. Perhaps you should have read it before you posted it?

Yeah, I know...a little too much, too fast. If he'd worked his way into it, it would've been a bit more believable.

Yeah, I wasted a halfway decent joke about gay marriage getting rid of straight marriage on this thread.

I came here seeking compromise and understanding, but it is apparent free speech is no longer allowed.

Apparently you have no better understanding of "free speech" than you do of compromise, understanding, marriage, freedom, or equal protection of the laws.

Just as you are free to spout offensive nonsense, others are allowed to disagree with you in the faint hope to educate you. Just as government is not your personal god-smiting stick, free speech is not simply agreeing with your asinine opinion.

so infertile couples should not marry?

what about people too old to bear children? should their marriages be banned as well?

And that's why post-menopausal women and the sterile are banned from ever getting married.

So...couples that can not have children, or choose not to, should have their marriages revoked? How long should that take, do you figure? Should fruit be borne within the first three years, maybe? Or do you give them longer?

Samsom's obviously a troll. Ignoring the most robust arguments, gunning for the weaker ones, plaintive whining and general intolerance...

Can this be over now?

Apparently you have no better understanding of "free speech" than you do of compromise, understanding, marriage, freedom, or equal protection of the laws.



Oh Cat, it's good to see you! :fluffle:

Holy fuck it's TCT.

Listen, if indeed you are a troll, you are a sloppy one. Don't play it too hard to swallow, or you'll find yourself gone before you can really develop your true, obnoxious potential. Good advice here, we see them come and go, and it's the ones who trainwreck through that just never manage to stick around.

So, this is in fact NOT about marriage, but rather about gay sex. Why didn't you say so to begin with? What...gays don't have sex out of wedlock? Are they in chastity belts in the meantime? Come on now.

And the STDs thing...married people tend to spread a lot less of those, regardless of their sexual orientation. So, in the interests of cutting down on what are actually now referred to as Sexually Transmitted Infections, not STDs, you'd probably want to support marriage across the board. But you won't. You just threw that in there to make it look like there was anything to your argument beyond 'gay sex is icky'.


Ahh... Yes. Thank you for resetting my berrings here, but I am dealing with about twelve arguments at once right now. Alright, a compromise here, if you didn't read my first post, thats what I'm looking for. As far as STDs go, okay we can give them some kind of mono-partner union. This is great for all partie.

But why do we have to call it marriage? I have gotten some assurance from others here, do we have agreement that we should simply remove marriage from the government altogether?

Apparently you have no better understanding of "free speech" than you do of compromise, understanding, marriage, freedom, or equal protection of the laws.

Just as you are free to spout offensive nonsense, others are allowed to disagree with you in the faint hope to educate you. Just as government is not your personal god-smiting stick, free speech is not simply agreeing with your asinine opinion.

CAT!!! where the hell ya been? we missed you so much

Samsom's obviously a troll. Ignoring the most robust arguments, gunning for the weaker ones, plaintive whining and general intolerance...

Can this be over now?

This is really his first big hurdle, if he can make it through this thread intact, he might be able to develop into a first-rate troll. There's always the hope, though it's rather faint in this case.

This is really his first big hurdle, if he can make it through this thread intact, he might be able to develop into a first-rate troll. There's always the hope, though it's rather faint in this case.

I'm not too optimistic about his chances.

he's no jesussaves.

No. Never. Under no circumstances.

No "marriage". No "civil union". No recognition of any kind.

And absolutely no adoptions.

But why do we have to call it marriage?

Because then it'd be separate but equal, which is inherently not equal at all.

No. Never. Under no circumstances.

Too late, sweetie. Your ilk has already lost.

No. Never. Under no circumstances.

No "marriage". No "civil union". No recognition of any kind.

And absolutely no adoptions.

Why?

Ahh... Yes. Thank you for resetting my berrings here, but I am dealing with about twelve arguments at once right now. Alright, a compromise here, if you didn't read my first post, thats what I'm looking for. As far as STDs go, okay we can give them some kind of mono-partner union. This is great for all partie.

But why do we have to call it marriage? I have gotten some assurance from others here, do we have agreement that we should simply remove marriage from the government altogether?

Alright, you're dealing with two issues.

1) Gay sex is icky.
This is not going to ever be a settled issue, might as well drop it.

2) Marriage versus civil unions
A more interesting concept, though I agree with an earlier poster that religious marriages should be of no force or effect legally. All marriages should be civil, with the ceremonies attached to them, religious or otherwise, simply being the frosting on the cake. I don't see how a civil union could ever be totally out of the realm of government interference, nor do I actually see this as desireable, but I'm open on that point since I don't actually give much of a shit about marriage unless it is discriminatory.

Then again, I'm actually more fond of common-law, or as they are in Alberta now, Adult Interdependent Relationships, which require no marriage license or annoying ceremony at all.

Apparently you have no better understanding of "free speech" than you do of compromise, understanding, marriage, freedom, or equal protection of the laws.

Just as you are free to spout offensive nonsense, others are allowed to disagree with you in the faint hope to educate you. Just as government is not your personal god-smiting stick, free speech is not simply agreeing with your asinine opinion.

No, simply agreeing with my asinine opinion is not free speech. But just as I am taking in your arguments, I hope you take in mine. I thought we might be civilized here. Offensive nonsense...I'm not the one going around calling people trolls here. Just as you wish to educate me, and you are, you must to be educated. As far as equality goes. Civilly fine. However it is hypocritical to say that an aethiest is not allowed to be athiest or a racist not to be racist. Double standards don't get us anywhere.

So again, if at least you might consider my suggestion of removing marriage from the government altogether.

I love how people love to twist my words...

As far as "gay sex is icky". wether or not I think that is irrelevant, this was just stating why religions oppose it, and who are we to make them accept it?

I love how people love to twist my words...

As far as "gay sex is icky". wether or not I think that is irrelevant, this was just stating why religions oppose it, and who are we to make them accept it?

they don't have to accept it.

but they don't get to legislate against it, either.

Ahh... Yes. Thank you for resetting my berrings here, but I am dealing with about twelve arguments at once right now. Alright, a compromise here, if you didn't read my first post, thats what I'm looking for. As far as STDs go, okay we can give them some kind of mono-partner union. This is great for all partie.

But why do we have to call it marriage? I have gotten some assurance from others here, do we have agreement that we should simply remove marriage from the government altogether?

ASIDE: Howdy, folks. I'm not so much back as having some time to kill and access to my computer. Can't believe I find this same shit. I'm glad to see you all too.

ON TOPIC: You are willing to abolish the institution of marriage in order to "save it from the gays"? Do you realize just how absurd that is.

I'm sorry but there is no reason to overturn thousands of laws because you are squeamish. Marriage is a fundamental human right to which all should have equal access without discrimination on the basis of race or gender. What part of that don't you understand?

Samsom's obviously a troll. Ignoring the most robust arguments, gunning for the weaker ones, plaintive whining and general intolerance...

Can this be over now?

I'm just trying to take one argument at a time. As far as intolerance goes...should we tolerate petafiles? should we tolerate the sex trade? Tolerance is fine as long as it doesn't breed ignorance.

I have no problem getting rid of marriage all together. I don't want to get married. But there are plenty of people who do and not all of them attend a church. So how would they get married?

I'm as fine with gay marriage as I am with heterosexual marriage. I think it should be lawfully allowed, but I think it's a bad idea for most people, including myself.

ASIDE: Howdy, folks. I'm not so much back as having some time to kill and access to my computer. Can't believe I find this same shit. I'm glad to see you all too.

Whoa! It's the Cat-Tribe! Too bad you can't stay. The forum debates are pretty boring and troll-rampant.

ASIDE: Howdy, folks. I'm not so much back as having some time to kill and access to my computer. Can't believe I find this same shit. I'm glad to see you all too.

ON TOPIC: You are willing to abolish the institution of marriage in order to "save it from the gays"? Do you realize just how absurd that is.

I'm sorry but there is no reason to overturn thousands of laws because you are squeamish. Marriage is a fundamental human right to which all should have equal access without discrimination on the basis of race or gender. What part of that don't you understand?

Yes marriage is a fundamental human right, as long as it still is marriage. But the union of homosexuals is not marriage, squeemishness has nothing to do with it.

As far as "saving it from the gays" goes, this helps them as much as it helps religous organizations.

Yes marriage is a fundamental human right, as long as it still is marriage. But the union of homosexuals is not marriage, squeemishness has nothing to do with it.
And why is it not marriage?

As far as "saving it from the gays" goes, this helps them as much as it helps religous organizations.
How?

Yes marriage is a fundamental human right, as long as it still is marriage. But the union of homosexuals is not marriage

and why not?

As far as "saving it from the gays" goes, this helps them as much as it helps religous organizations.

how so?

I have no problem getting rid of marriage all together. I don't want to get married. But there are plenty of people who do and not all of them attend a church. So how would they get married?

A spiritual ceramony. No legal record keeping there, leave it to the church, if they feel the need to keep it documented.

lol Cthulhu


beat me by seconds :D

LOL 2 people post the exact same response

A spiritual ceramony. No legal record keeping there, leave it to the church, if they feel the need to keep it documented.

So, people who want to get married but don't attend a church should have to... attend a church?

There goes that twitching near my eye again.

how so?

you mean helps them both. Well, the religions(I'm sorry for saying church so often, by that I mean religous organizations), will be able to keep there marriages 'sacred' within their churches, and the gays can have 'marriage', ther is nothing stopping them.

So, people who want to get married but don't attend a church should have to... attend a church?

There goes that twitching near my eye again.

No, this is just for spiritual people. The gays can have some form of ceremony(I have no idea what this would intail), and call it 'marriage, document it if they want I suppose.

The same for those whom are not religous, though I don't see why they would feel the need.

First off, your "proof" is shit. Perhaps you didn't realize that the survey was done in 1983? Also, the study was seeking to prove that homosexuality was a "deviant lifestyle." I read over this study, and the bias here is blatantly obvious. The fact that you propose this as proof leads me to question your intelligence.

Secondly, marriage was not originally developed as a "holy institution." As far as it being some sort of binding ceremony performed before God, what about other religions, or people who have no religion at all? Are their marriages null and void because they don't serve your personal deity?

Thirdly, what's this bullshit about homosexuals not being "fruitful?" Again, you're holding other people to your personal religious standards. I for one don't want to be dictated to by a religion that I don't follow. Also, if this is a major argument, then I suppose we're also going to outlaw the marriage of any two persons where at least one of them is barren? Don't be a hypocrite, apply the standard to everyone it fits.

Finally, I will most certainly agree with you that it isn't fair for other people to be dragged into a gay wedding if they don't wish to participate. I'm certainly not going to sue a photographer if he doesn't take pictures at my wedding. I would never use my sexuality as leverage to force someone to do something, and those who do disgust me to no end. Minority status should not be able to be used to get special treatment.

Again, I really have to reiterate my point about your source. If one is trying to prove a point, they can't just use one source, and they certainly can't use sources that are as blatantly biased as yours was.

you mean helps them both. Well, the religions(I'm sorry for saying church so often, by that I mean religous organizations), will be able to keep there marriages 'sacred' within their churches, and the gays can have 'marriage', ther is nothing stopping them.

except for the part where you just banned them from having their marriage.


or do the quotation marks mean that you're trying to push the "separate but equal" argument again?

that gays can have something that isn't marriage, but is just as good and named something different?

First off, your "proof" is shit. Perhaps you didn't realize that the survey was done in 1983? Also, the study was seeking to prove that homosexuality was a "deviant lifestyle." I read over this study, and the bias here is blatantly obvious. The fact that you propose this as proof leads me to question your intelligence.

Secondly, marriage was not originally developed as a "holy institution." As far as it being some sort of binding ceremony performed before God, what about other religions, or people who have no religion at all? Are their marriages null and void because they don't serve your personal deity?

Thirdly, what's this bullshit about homosexuals not being "fruitful?" Again, you're holding other people to your personal religious standards. I for one don't want to be dictated to by a religion that I don't follow. Also, if this is a major argument, then I suppose we're also going to outlaw the marriage of any two persons where at least one of them is barren? Don't be a hypocrite, apply the standard to everyone it fits.

Finally, I will most certainly agree with you that it isn't fair for other people to be dragged into a gay wedding if they don't wish to participate. I'm certainly not going to sue a photographer if he doesn't take pictures at my wedding. I would never use my sexuality as leverage to force someone to do something, and those who do disgust me to no end. Minority status should not be able to be used to get special treatment.

Again, I really have to reiterate my point about your source. If one is trying to prove a point, they can't just use one source, and they certainly can't use sources that are as blatantly biased as yours was.

I have nothing against the gays as long as they don't take away marriage. What is prejudice there?
I dont like groups who try to take away marriage either. That's why I find you objectional.

It's telling that the same tired and incorrect premise is the basis for just about every anti-gay marriage argument. For people so concerned and worried about marriage that they feel their passion for it entitles them to restrict the freedom of others, you'd think these people would care enough about marriage to learn something about it. But apparently caring about marriage doesnt stretch to putting effort into anything but sticking their noses in other peoples' business and trying to control the affairs of others.

Marriage is not a religious institution. I dont mind allowing religious involvment, but my tolerance stops short where the hi-jacking attempts begin.

Society kindly allows religions the potential to be active participants in marriages, but if religions' response to this is to steal marriage, then maybe we should review this privledge. Let society keep marriage and if religions cannot abide the privledged role they've been offered without snatching to steal from its benefactors, then let religions keep out of marriage altogether; they can always have 'religious unions' if they want - just leave marriage alone.

No, simply agreeing with my asinine opinion is not free speech. But just as I am taking in your arguments, I hope you take in mine. I thought we might be civilized here. Offensive nonsense...I'm not the one going around calling people trolls here. Just as you wish to educate me, and you are, you must to be educated. As far as equality goes. Civilly fine. However it is hypocritical to say that an aethiest is not allowed to be athiest or a racist not to be racist. Double standards don't get us anywhere.

So again, if at least you might consider my suggestion of removing marriage from the government altogether.

How is recognizing equal protection under the law for all persons a double standard?

Again, your "my lai massacre" attitude doesn't really reconcile very well with your claimed love of the institution of marriage.

The legal institution of marriage in modern society is a legal bonding that carries with it thousands of rights, privileges, responsibilities, and benefits. In the US, for example, we have fought over two centuries to have the fundamental human right to enter into marriage be recognized and supported by government. Your scorched earth approach would abolish this because of a petty prejudice.

First off, your "proof" is shit. Perhaps you didn't realize that the survey was done in 1983? Also, the study was seeking to prove that homosexuality was a "deviant lifestyle." I read over this study, and the bias here is blatantly obvious. The fact that you propose this as proof leads me to question your intelligence.

Secondly, marriage was not originally developed as a "holy institution." As far as it being some sort of binding ceremony performed before God, what about other religions, or people who have no religion at all? Are their marriages null and void because they don't serve your personal deity?

Thirdly, what's this bullshit about homosexuals not being "fruitful?" Again, you're holding other people to your personal religious standards. I for one don't want to be dictated to by a religion that I don't follow. Also, if this is a major argument, then I suppose we're also going to outlaw the marriage of any two persons where at least one of them is barren? Don't be a hypocrite, apply the standard to everyone it fits.

Finally, I will most certainly agree with you that it isn't fair for other people to be dragged into a gay wedding if they don't wish to participate. I'm certainly not going to sue a photographer if he doesn't take pictures at my wedding. I would never use my sexuality as leverage to force someone to do something, and those who do disgust me to no end. Minority status should not be able to be used to get special treatment.

Again, I really have to reiterate my point about your source. If one is trying to prove a point, they can't just use one source, and they certainly can't use sources that are as blatantly biased as yours was.

Can you tell two human beings that their love is true and valid when people say they can't be married?

How would you explain it to them? I consider your life shameful and keep it out of my eyes.

I consider it a corruption that you should be kept from kids.

What an attack on the psyche of someone. In Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education the point was that seperate but equal inherently was unequal.

Those who are against gay marriage may have religous beliefs that conflict with it. I can't ask them to give up their beliefs. I would note this conflict within my belifes and find a conclusion that can reconcile this.

I value the opinions of the opponents. My hope is that homosexuals can feel accepted. And in that the opinions of every person against gay marriage is more important than the legal definition.

It has become aparent that this issue needs to be addressed. Now I'm not trying to do this incure the wrath of bleeding-hearts, I'm doing this for the betterment of all our understanding, and the settling of this issue.

Firstly I am not pregiduce towards the gays. Legally there is no sense in trying to police there very personal lives. However, marriage is a different story.

Marriage is the binding of two souls before God to go and fullfill his commandment to populate the Earth. This is a very tactful way of saying to condone intercourse. Now I ask you, exactly how fruitful are to homosexuals going to be? Therefore, firstly what purpose is there in granting them marriage?

Now your going to bring up legal rights, yadayadayada. Alright, fair enough, grant them the legal rights, give it some other name. Civil union, or soulmating, frankly, as long as it does not attack other current belief systems, we're all honky-dory.

Or better yet, this is only an idea. Why not completely and utterly remove the right of marriage from the hands of the government. What does it give that can't be fullfilled in a will? That way, the gays can go make some voodoo church where they can have their marriage and we can have ours.

Also, we must take into acount that homosexuals are more likely to transfer STDs. Now I know your going to ask for "the burden of proof", so see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_ISIS_Survey

See the second set of statistics.
Now yes this is frightening, but the upright have no need to fear.

What really bothers me is when an individual is forced to participate in such affairs. There was a photographer in Alberta who got sued for not taking pictures at a gay wedding for example. And time and time again clergy get harrased for not carrying them out. This is even worse then the legalizations themselves.

I hope you will accept one of my compromises. For all our sakes.

Oh for Chrissakes, not another one. <sigh>

If the photographer did not wish to photograph the gay wedding, he should not have hired himself out to do the work.

If the clergy don't wish to marry gay folks, fine. Canadian law does not force a church to sanctify a marriage if it is against the church's doctrine and rules. Making that choice has clear social consequences. However, if a priest is of a religion in which it is legal to sanctify a gay marriage and they refuse, then they are in the wrong.

The law allows gay marriage, it means the various government organs cannot refuse a civil ceremony in a government office nor ignore the attendant rules that go with legal status of the couple.

If you don't like it, move out of Canada into a more restrictive society that follows more conservative dictates...if you don't like the sanctification of gay relationships, you don't need to participate or even pay attention to them. Keep your nose out of it...you will be happier, and I certainly will be much happier not having to read ignorant jackasses like you whining about it.

Yeesh.

I dont like groups who try to take away marriage either. That's why I find you objectional.

It's telling that the same tired and [/b]incorrect[/b] premise is the basis for just about every anti-gay marriage argument. For people so concerned and worried about marriage that they feel their passion for it entitles them to restrict the freedom of others, you'd think these people would care enough about marriage to learn something about it. But apparently caring about marriage doesnt stretch to putting effort into anything but sticking their noses in other peoples' business and trying to control the affairs of others.

Marriage is not a religious institution. I dont mind allowing religious involvment, but my tolerance stops short where the hi-jacking attempts begin.

Society kindly allows religions the potential to be active participants in marriages, but if religions' response to this is to steal marriage, then maybe we should review this privledge. Let society keep marriage and if religions cannot abide the privledged role they've been offered without snatching to steal from its benefactors, then let religions keep out of marriage altogether; they can always have 'religious unions' if they want - just leave marriage alone.

I would be fine with a religious union, except for the fact that that is marriage. If we eliminate the word 'marriage' and replace it all legal circumstances with 'union' have at her. You said its not a religious institution, sorry by definition your wrong. it started religously over 4000 years ago. I don't mind legal interferment, as long as they don't start hijacking it.

How is recognizing equal protection under the law for all persons a double standard?

Again, your "my lai massacre" attitude doesn't really reconcile very well with your claimed love of the institution of marriage.

The legal institution of marriage in modern society is a legal bonding that carries with it thousands of rights, privileges, responsibilities, and benefits. In the US, for example, we have fought over two centuries to have the fundamental human right to enter into marriage be recognized and supported by government. Your scorched earth approach would abolish this because of a petty prejudice.

How is recognizing equal protection undrer the law for all persons a double standard? Answer: Its not, as long as it protects people. But the constant infringement upon my fellow clergy is unfair harrasment, and who gets sued? the harrased.

Its not prejudice. I don't mind the gays, in fact i have a friend who is one. But he accepts that marriage is religous, and that he doesn't need it. As far as "scorched earth approach goes, maybe I can be prejudice, but I'm looking for compromise, I thought I had it a minute ago and then I had computer troubles.

You said its not a religious institution, sorry by definition your wrong. it started religously over 4000 years ago.

Source?

Source?

His ass.

Oh for Chrissakes, not another one. <sigh>

If the photographer did not wish to photograph the gay wedding, he should not have hired himself out to do the work.

If the clergy don't wish to marry gay folks, fine. Canadian law does not force a church to sanctify a marriage if it is against the church's doctrine and rules. Making that choice has clear social consequences. However, if a priest is of a religion in which it is legal to sanctify a gay marriage and they refuse, then they are in the wrong.

The law allows gay marriage, it means the various government organs cannot refuse a civil ceremony in a government office nor ignore the attendant rules that go with legal status of the couple.

If you don't like it, move out of Canada into a more restrictive society that follows more conservative dictates...if you don't like the sanctification of gay relationships, you don't need to participate or even pay attention to them. Keep your nose out of it...you will be happier, and I certainly will be much happier not having to read ignorant jackasses like you whining about it.

Yeesh.

That would be great if it were true(save the part about not having to listen to others opinions) if it were true. But the fact is more and more people are bieng forced to survey these marriages. Not all justices of peace support them. A friend of mine for example.

Source?

Check the book of Exodus.

I would be fine with a religious union, except for the fact that that is marriage. If we eliminate the word 'marriage' and replace it all legal circumstances with 'union' have at her. You said its not a religious institution, sorry by definition your wrong. it started religously over 4000 years ago. I don't mind legal interferment, as long as they don't start hijacking it.

Pathetic.

In order to keep gays from using the word "marriage," no one can use it?

You don't see any irony in claiming that in order to keep marriage sacred no one can have it?

If you are truly creating the same unions for gays and straights, how are you protecting us from the horrors of "gay marriage"?

You and Lt. Calley may agree on how to save a village, but the rest of us would rather simply stop discriminating. Isn't that the better "compromise"?

That would be great if it were true(save the part about not having to listen to others opinions) if it were true. But the fact is more and more people are bieng forced to survey these marriages. Not all justices of peace support them. A friend of mine for example.

Whoop de fucking doo. He's a justice of the peace. It's his job. Sorry, but if you can't perform your job, you don't get to keep that job.

I would be fine with a religious union, except for the fact that that is marriage. If we eliminate the word 'marriage' and replace it all legal circumstances with 'union' have at her. You said its not a religious institution, sorry by definition your wrong. it started religously over 4000 years ago. I don't mind legal interferment, as long as they don't start hijacking it.
I'm not sorry, but you're wrong. Consider this. You are completely ignorant as to the origins of marriage, the numerous forms it has taken throughout time and space and the predominate purposes it serves. All this information is readily available but you've not bothered to learn any of it. You care so much about marriage that this causes you to interfer and try to dictate to others what their rights should be, but not enough to find out even the first thing about marriage. I dont believe you do care about marriage- seems to me you are more concerned with exerting control over others.

Marriage is much older than 4000 years (as you'd know if you really cared about marriage). Marriage is not predominately a religious institition, but rather an social/economic one (as you'd know if you really cared about marriage). Marriage is no more religious than eating (as you'd know if you cared about marriage).

Let me be very clear. Marriage does not belong to religion. It is you who is trying to hi-jack the common birth rite of all humanity, not 'teh gays'. It is you who is trying to take marriage as your own for some little fantasy belief circle you and your cohorts have going despite the fact that marriage existed before and in many places completely independently of the religion in whose name you would steal our common birth rite. Quit trying to take what belongs to us all. If you want your own exclusive little rite, then go make up your own and stop trying to get dibbs on what belongs to us all.

Check the book of Exodus.

He asked for a source, not a heavily mistranslated written account of an oral tradition that was passed down for thousands of years of an event that never actually happened.

Pathetic.

In order to keep gays from using the word "marriage," no one can use it?

You don't see any irony in claiming that in order to keep marriage sacred no one can have it?

If you are truly creating the same unions for gays and straights, how are you protecting us from the horrors of "gay marriage"?

You and Lt. Calley may agree on how to save a village, but the rest of us would rather simply stop discriminating. Isn't that the better "compromise"?

I'm not saying no one can have it, only that the government shouldn't need to recognise it.

That would be great if it were true(save the part about not having to listen to others opinions) if it were true. But the fact is more and more people are bieng forced to survey these marriages. Not all justices of peace support them. A friend of mine for example.

Do you know what an entitlement is? Its a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights, or by agreement through law. Now if your friend refuses to marry a couple and that right is an entitlement such as marriage would be the state/country/whatever can be legally sued because they are denying people benefits they are entitled to legally. Its like saying a Justice of the Peace shouldn't have to marry an interracial couple because they don't agree with it. It just doesn't work that way because of rights.

Whoop de fucking doo. He's a justice of the peace. It's his job. Sorry, but if you can't perform your job, you don't get to keep that job.

which is why this is wrong.

which is why this is wrong.

It's the same as a doctor refusing to treat a patient because the patient is black.

medicine is an essential service.

Well. So far all I've read is bickering, name calling and finger pointing.
I do agree with you on certain bits, Samson. To get rid of the word marriage wouldn't be as necessary as redefining it to something a bit more general- two consenting adults coming together to share their lives under protection of the law, to be treated as all official, monogamous parties are.

If we were to do that, I believe we might start to head the right direction.

A lot of people I've met want to get married to rock the boat. To say 'see, look, I'm doing it because it bothers you. I'm doing this because I want to be like everyone else,' An reminder of African American's first attempts to vote. To say 'see, I want in on this too. I live here. I ask for the same as you.'

I have found that one needs patience when dealing with people. I don't believing in calling them names -in fact, I find the word 'faggot' and 'fag' as derogatory as 'coloured' or '******.' They are not setting any examples to be proud of. I also think that yelling, being sarcastic, being childish, pointing fingers and trying to put words into one another's mouths will get you nowhere. It's like politics at it's worst- all fluff and no substance. To those who are saying relevant things, congratulations on keeping a level head.

Samson, I must say, to expect every couple to have children? What about Sarah? If not for the angel, she would have always been barren. Should Joseph have divorced her? Given up, or cursed her? No. Because he loved her, he stayed. Like any good couple, the relationship is based on love and trust. Not on children. My parents attempted to stay together by having children. All it did is proloung their misery. Also, now, people are becoming more open minded with adoption. Why not give a child to a stable house hold? Because it might grow up with two daddies? Two mommies? Why is that so bad? I grew up without a father, and my mother was at work all day. Yet I am not a mass murderer. I am a college bound student, who until this post was eagerly looking forward to attending Alberta College of Art and Design.

I am gay, I am proud, and I want my rights. No more, no less. Give me bread an water like the next person in line.

medicine is an essential service.

It is a service provided by the government, the same as marriage.

I'm not saying no one can have it, only that the government shouldn't need to recognise it.

Then why is your title "gay marriage" and not just "Marriage" or "The Government's involvement in marriage"? ANd for a lot of people (as Ive been saying for sometime) are not a part of any organization that could make a marriage official. So if the government backed out of marriage then these people would have no way to get married other than just calling themselves married. If this happened then only church goers would be able to have an official marriage which would not be fair to others.

I'm not saying no one can have it, only that the government shouldn't need to recognise it.

Then let it not recognize it for ANYONE.

I promise you that the vast majority of gay rights activists would be JUST fine having gay union being called a "civil union" under the law...just as long as heterosexual unions were called "civil union" under the law.

The whole point is they want equality, they want no seperation. If the government calls it "civil union" then let it be civil union. If the government calls it "marriage" then let it be marriage.

For a lot of people, they want the exact same thing that everyone else gets, no "domestic partnership", no "civil union" when straight couples get to call it marriage.

Whatever it's called, whatever the government does, whatever they refert to it as, there needs to be equality. And as long as the government insists on calling it marriage for straights, then it should be marriage for everyone. And if people want to give gays civil unions, then that's just fine, as long as they accept that under the eyes of the government, EVERYBODY gets to have a civil union, and we leave the term marriage entirely private, for whatever religious organization wishes to perform it.

I want Samson to reply to Zagat's posts...

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2004/03/01/tomo/story.jpg

Then let it not recognize it for ANYONE.

I promise you that the vast majority of gay rights activists would be JUST fine having gay union being called a "civil union" under the law...just as long as heterosexual unions were called "civil union" under the law.

The whole point is they want equality, they want no seperation. If the government calls it "civil union" then let it be civil union. If the government calls it "marriage" then let it be marriage.

For a lot of people, they want the exact same thing that everyone else gets, no "domestic partnership", no "civil union" when straight couples get to call it marriage.

Whatever it's called, whatever the government does, whatever they refert to it as, there needs to be equality. And as long as the government insists on calling it marriage for straights, then it should be marriage for everyone. And if people want to give gays civil unions, then that's just fine, as long as they accept that under the eyes of the government, EVERYBODY gets to have a civil union, and we leave the term marriage entirely private, for whatever religious organization wishes to perform it.

Thank you, I appreciate that. This is exactly what I have said about half a dozen times prior. This is why I had said we remove the word marriage from the government.

Let me be very clear. Marriage does not belong to religion. It is you who is trying to hi-jack the common birth rite of all humanity, not 'teh gays'.

You can't take away what never existed. Marriage has been defined as a relationship between males and females, exclusively, for all of recorded history. I am aware of no major civilization, or even any primitive tribe in the most remote backwater, that has sanctioned same-sex "marriage." The so-called "right" of "gays" to "marry" has never existed, and a few black-robed social sabateurs and sociopathic political panderers cannot change that fact.

It is you who is trying to take marriage as your own for some little fantasy belief circle you and your cohorts have going despite the fact that marriage existed before and in many places completely independently of the religion in whose name you would steal our common birth rite. Quit trying to take what belongs to us all. If you want your own exclusive little rite, then go make up your own and stop trying to get dibbs on what belongs to us all.

The only "fantasy" here is your fantasy that sexually deviant lifestyle choices have ever formed a basis for marriage.

You can't take away what never existed. Marriage has been defined as a relationship between males and females, exclusively, for all of recorded history. I am aware of no major civilization, or even any primitive tribe in the most remote backwater, that has sanctioned same-sex "marriage."
Most Amerindian tribes, bitch.

(Plus medieval Europe prior to around 1300 or so.)

Then let it not recognize it for ANYONE.

I promise you that the vast majority of gay rights activists would be JUST fine having gay union being called a "civil union" under the law...just as long as heterosexual unions were called "civil union" under the law.

The whole point is they want equality, they want no seperation. If the government calls it "civil union" then let it be civil union. If the government calls it "marriage" then let it be marriage.

For a lot of people, they want the exact same thing that everyone else gets, no "domestic partnership", no "civil union" when straight couples get to call it marriage.

Whatever it's called, whatever the government does, whatever they refert to it as, there needs to be equality. And as long as the government insists on calling it marriage for straights, then it should be marriage for everyone. And if people want to give gays civil unions, then that's just fine, as long as they accept that under the eyes of the government, EVERYBODY gets to have a civil union, and we leave the term marriage entirely private, for whatever religious organization wishes to perform it.

Well. So far all I've read is bickering, name calling and finger pointing.
I do agree with you on certain bits, Samson. To get rid of the word marriage wouldn't be as necessary as redefining it to something a bit more general- two consenting adults coming together to share their lives under protection of the law, to be treated as all official, monogamous parties are.

If we were to do that, I believe we might start to head the right direction.

A lot of people I've met want to get married to rock the boat. To say 'see, look, I'm doing it because it bothers you. I'm doing this because I want to be like everyone else,' An reminder of African American's first attempts to vote. To say 'see, I want in on this too. I live here. I ask for the same as you.'

I have found that one needs patience when dealing with people. I don't believing in calling them names -in fact, I find the word 'faggot' and 'fag' as derogatory as 'coloured' or '******.' They are not setting any examples to be proud of. I also think that yelling, being sarcastic, being childish, pointing fingers and trying to put words into one another's mouths will get you nowhere. It's like politics at it's worst- all fluff and no substance. To those who are saying relevant things, congratulations on keeping a level head.

Samson, I must say, to expect every couple to have children? What about Sarah? If not for the angel, she would have always been barren. Should Joseph have divorced her? Given up, or cursed her? No. Because he loved her, he stayed. Like any good couple, the relationship is based on love and trust. Not on children. My parents attempted to stay together by having children. All it did is proloung their misery. Also, now, people are becoming more open minded with adoption. Why not give a child to a stable house hold? Because it might grow up with two daddies? Two mommies? Why is that so bad? I grew up without a father, and my mother was at work all day. Yet I am not a mass murderer. I am a college bound student, who until this post was eagerly looking forward to attending Alberta College of Art and Design.

I am gay, I am proud, and I want my rights. No more, no less. Give me bread an water like the next person in line.

I agree, you deserve your human rights, but not the word. As far as your theological coments go, no. But two men know off the bat they aren't going to have kids. The two dadies and two mommies... if the kids okay with it. I never said that these children would turn out worse. But I am planning on become a preacher when I am done high school. I do not want to be forced to marriage gays.

You can't take away what never existed. Marriage has been defined as a relationship between males and females, exclusively, for all of recorded history. I am aware of no major civilization, or even any primitive tribe in the most remote backwater, that has sanctioned same-sex "marriage." The so-called "right" of "gays" to "marry" has never existed, and a few black-robed social sabateurs and sociopathic political panderers cannot change that fact.



The only "fantasy" here is your fantasy that sexually deviant lifestyle choices have ever formed a basis for marriage.

O RLY?

Much later, in 2nd century Rome, conjugal contracts between men of about the same age were ridiculed but legally binding. Such marriages were blessed by pagan religions, particularly sects of the Mother Goddess Cybele (imported from Asia Minor). At the ceremony, the bridal party consists entirely of men, who enter the temple and deck each other with "gay fillets round the forehead . . . and strings of orient perals." They light a torch in honor of the goddess and sacrifice a pregnant swine. One man gets up and chooses a husband for himself, and dances himself into a frenzy. Then he drinks deeply from a goblet in the shape of a large penis, flings the goblet away, strips off his clothes, and "takes the stole and flammea of a bride" and the two men are married.

The "bride" is a transvestite only for the duration of this ceremony, for in a deeply religious sense he has temporarily become the goddess at these holy rites. The other men sing a hymenal drinking-song, and then pair up amongst themselves to celebrate multiple nuptials by group sex (i.e. orgies). The following day the names of all the pairs are registered in legal records as formal marriages.

Many ancient writers, such as Strabo and Athenaeus, wrote that the Gauls or Celts commonly practised homosexuality. Aristotle wrote that the Celts "openly held in honor passionate friendship (synousia) between males". Diodorus Siculus wrote that "Although the Gauls have lovely women, they scarcely pay attention to them, but strangely crave male embraces (arrenon epiplokas). Resting on the ground on beasts' skins, they are accustomed to roll about with bedfellows (parakoitois) on either side." Later, Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote that "Among the Gauls, the young men marry each other (gamountai) with complete freedom. In doing this, they do not incur any reproach or blame, since this is done according to custom amongst them." Bardaisan of Edessa wrote that "In the countries of the north — in the lands of the Germans and those of their neighbors, handsome [noble] young men assume the role of wives [women] towards other men, and they celebrate marriage feasts."


The Mollies
Let us now leap ahead to early 18th century London, where gay men also got married, but without legal sanction. In the 1720s there were about 40 "molly houses" in central London, disorderly pubs or coffee houses where gay men (called "mollies") socialized, singing bawdy songs and dancing country dances while someone played the fiddle. Many of these gay clubs had a "Marrying Room" or "Chapel", where, according to witnesses, "They would go out by couples into another room on the same floor, to be married, as they called it, and when they came back they would tell what they had been doing." These marriages were not monogamous, and 18-year-old Ned Courtney was "helped to two or three Husbands" in the Marrying Room of the Royal Oak at the corner of St James's Square, Pall Mall.

Sometimes the ceremony was more formal. One "Wedding Night" in 1728 included two men acting as "Bridesmaids" as well as the bridal couple. Though transvestism does not seem to have been practised at such ceremonies, both men, as well as most other mollies, would adopt a "Maiden Name". Men who formed such marriages included St Dunstan's Kate and Madam Blackwell; Mademoiselle Gent (alias Willian Gent) and John Whale (alias Peggy Whale); and Aunt May (an upholsterer) and Dip-Candle Mary (a tallow-chandler). In spite of these maiden names – which both partners assumed – there is no indication of male-female role playing, for both men referred to their partner as a "Husband". The term "wife" was never used among gay men.

Molly marriages didn't have the blessing of any church until the 1810s, when Rev John Church officiated as the "Chaplain" at male gay marriages at The Swan in Vere Street. Some of the members of this gay brothel were Miss Selina, a police constable; Black-Eyed Leonora, a Drummer of the Guards; and Miss Sweet Lips, a country grocer. Rev Church, a Baptist, also presided at gay funerals, for example the burial of Richard Oakden, hanged for sodomy on November 15, 1809. Church himself was sent to prison for two years in 1817.


American Indians
Let us now leap across the waters to look at gay marriages among the American Indians, particularly the Sioux and the Cheyenne. In most such marriages one of the two men was a berdache, a transvestite/medicine man who wore men's clothes only when he joined a war party, where he cared for the wounded. The berdaches were especially popular with young people, for they were excellent matchmakers – in a sense they personified the very concept of marriage – and fine love talkers. They got married to either the loafers of the village, or would become the second or third "wife" of the chieftain. Usually their husbands were more ridiculed than they themselves were, not because of homosexuality, which Indians generally tolerated, but because such husbands usually abandoned their economic status in society, and let the berdache do all the work to create the model household.

One of the more famous berdaches was Yellow Head of the Cheyenne, who became the third wife of Chief Wagetote after being rejected by the white mountaineer John Tanner. Even today there are still some berdaches, called winktes among the Sioux, or "two-spirit" persons, but most of them have disappeared, as Indians on the reservations give up their old ways and adopt the civilization of the white man.

Rictor Norton, "Taking a 'Husband': A History of Gay Marriage", Queer Culture. 21 February 2004

To the Christians: where in the Bible does Jesus talk about tax breaks and property rights when it comes to marriage? That's right...he doesn't. Jesus referred to marriage as a holy union before God, i.e. where a man and a woman are married in a religious ceremony and become "one." God's law about marriage has nothing to do with a legal contract mandated by the government, especially one that allows for divorce, a major inconsistenty with Christian marriages as mandated literally by the Bible. Christians need to understand that, although governments are involved in the offering of marriage licenses, a marriage is not a biblical one if it does not involve a religious ceremony and commitment. Therefore, nothing should stop gays from getting married legally, because the government has nothing to do with the holy institution known as marriage.

I agree, you deserve your human rights, but not the word. As far as your theological coments go, no. But two men know off the bat they aren't going to have kids. The two dadies and two mommies... if the kids okay with it. I never said that these children would turn out worse. But I am planning on become a preacher when I am done high school. I do not want to be forced to marriage gays.

Let me ask you one very, very simple question ok, and think really, REALLY hard before you answer.

Even if gay marriage were made legal, what makes you think that churches will be required to perform it?

The only "fantasy" here is your fantasy that sexually deviant lifestyle choices have ever formed a basis for marriage.

Judging by your signature, you believe in God... God makes gay people.

Too late, sweetie. Your ilk has already lost.

Not when people actually get to vote on the issue.

It's your "ilk" that will never be accepted as anything other than practitioners of sexually deviant lifestyle choices. Sorry to break that to you. Now go back into your closet and rethink your life.

Let me ask you one very, very simple question ok, and think really, REALLY hard before you answer.

Even if gay marriage were made legal, what makes you think that churches will be required to perform it?

BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!

I am living in a country where it is legal, and though they are not legaly required, its getting shoved down there throats.

Not when people actually get to vote on the issue.

It's your "ilk" that will never be accepted as anything other than practitioners of sexually deviant lifestyle choices. Sorry to break that to you. Now go back into your closet and rethink your life.

funny, I was going to suggest that you finally come out of the closet, and get on with yours.

C'mon, release the inner fabulous that we ALL know is just waiting to burst out of that wizzened and spite filled shell of yours.

Not when people actually get to vote on the issue.
They did. And gay marriage got legalised.

It's your "ilk" that will never be accepted as anything other than practitioners of sexually deviant lifestyle choices. Sorry to break that to you. Now go back into your closet and rethink your life.
Only regressive beasts like you don't accept homosexuals.

BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!

I am living in a country where it is legal, and though they are not legaly required, its getting shoved down there throats.

if it's not required then how is it required.

You fail at logic, try again. And what you propose is to not change the law to avoid your church having to feel social pressure to conform.

Well tough fucking shit. Religion has enough breaks in this world, you don't get to ask that the law conform to your beliefs just so you don't actually have to have conviction and STAND UP TO THEM.

Belief is hollow when the law supports it, a true test of belief is when you're in the minority. And I'm sorry, but you don't get to ask that the law conform to your belief structure just so your church can escape pressure. You don't get to make law to fit your comfort level at the expense of others.

You're just not that fucking special.

BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!

I am living in a country where it is legal, and though they are not legaly required, its getting shoved down there throats.

You contradicted yourself, bucko. Ah, the old fundamentalist persecution complex.

Judging by your signature, you believe in God... God makes gay people.

He also makes people who don't know the difference between right and wrong, people with deformities, people with countless genetic disorders. Lets not pursue that one.

He also makes people who don't know the difference between right and wrong, people with deformities, people with countless genetic disorders. Lets not pursue that one.

So homosexuality is a deformity now? Feel the Christian love, people.

if it's not required then how is it required.

You fail at logic, try again.

when they refuse mariage, they are bieng persicuted in other ways. The law is not the only force in this world.

The so-called "right" of "gays" to "marry" has never existed, and a few black-robed social sabateurs and sociopathic political panderers cannot change that fact.

The only "fantasy" here is your fantasy that sexually deviant lifestyle choices have ever formed a basis for marriage.


It's your "ilk" that will never be accepted as anything other than practitioners of sexually deviant lifestyle choices. Sorry to break that to you. Now go back into your closet and rethink your life.

Thou doest protest too much. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation)

when they refuse mariage, they are bieng persicuted in other ways. The law is not the only force in this world.

Source. Now.

He also makes people who don't know the difference between right and wrong, people with deformities, people with countless genetic disorders. Lets not pursue that one.

So how and why do you blame and discriminate homosexuals for the faults handed down to them by Almighty God?

when they refuse mariage, they are bieng persicuted in other ways. The law is not the only force in this world.

I will repeat what I said, since it appears you missed my edit.

And what you propose is to not change the law to avoid your church having to feel social pressure to conform.

Well tough fucking shit. Religion has enough breaks in this world, you don't get to ask that the law conform to your beliefs just so you don't actually have to have conviction and STAND UP TO THEM.

Belief is hollow when the law supports it, a true test of belief is when you're in the minority. And I'm sorry, but you don't get to ask that the law conform to your belief structure just so your church can escape pressure. You don't get to make law to fit your comfort level at the expense of others.

You're just not that fucking special.

Samson, to return back to yourcomment a while ago- you are provide a service, and you have the choice to refuse it to anyone, at anytime, do you not?

Also, no matter how hard to wave a bible, hum hymnals, or just close your ayes, we are not going to dissappear. I am here to stay, and since it's such a sort while on this earth, if we could agree to disagree (seeings as we are all rather set in our opinions) perhaps we could focus on issues that are affecting everyone. Like Global Warming. things that might, you know, be a bigger threat to all of humanity.

I have duties tomorrow, it is 11:00PM in my part of the world. Good night.

Not when people actually get to vote on the issue.

Because we let human rights be up for mob rule, and because "people" = "some inhabitants of some states in the US."

It's your "ilk" that will never be accepted as anything other than practitioners of sexually deviant lifestyle choices. Sorry to break that to you. Now go back into your closet and rethink your life.

That's just hilarious in how out of tune it is with reality.

By the way, does anyone find it funny that New Mitanni, a man who admittedly gets off on watching people die, is calling homosexuals "sexual deviants"?

I have duties tomorrow, it is 11:00PM in my part of the world. Good night.

who the hell works on new year's day?

That's just hilarious in how out of tune it is with reality.

New Mitanni is a laugh a minute in that regard. The only time he's not that funny is when he's trying.

By the way, does anyone find it funny that New Mitanni, a man who admittedly gets off on watching people die, is calling homosexuals "sexual deviants"?

I was gonna point that out, but ya know, it would have given away my secret identity as a Liberal European Pawn of Subhuman Multiculturalist Totalitarian New World Order.

By the way, does anyone find it funny that New Mitanni, a man who admittedly gets off on watching people die, is calling homosexuals "sexual deviants"?

I just think it's funny that "sexual deviancy" would be something bad. The best sex is usually the "deviant" kind, be it straight or gay... but, he might not be familiar with it.

I just think it's funny that "sexual deviancy" would be something bad. The best sex is usually the "deviant" kind, be it straight or gay... but, he might not be familiar with it.

That's because sodomy is a sin, and let's face it: sinning is more fun. Still shouldn't do it.

I just think it's funny that "sexual deviancy" would be something bad. The best sex is usually the "deviant" kind, be it straight or gay... but, he might not be familiar with it.

as an apparent fellow deviant, I do admit, the guy doesn't know what he's missing.

when they refuse mariage, they are bieng persicuted in other ways. The law is not the only force in this world.

LOL
And, although the law is not discriminating against gays they are being persicuted in other ways. C'est la vie.

That's because sodomy is a sin, and let's face it: sinning is more fun. Still shouldn't do it.

on the contrary, because it's a sin is the BEST reason to do it. And there's a whole lot more to deviancy than simple sodomy.

on the contrary, because it's a sin is the BEST reason to do it. And there's a whole lot more to deviancy than simple sodomy.

Simple, but sweet, oh, so sweet. :)

on the contrary, because it's a sin is the BEST reason to do it. And there's a whole lot more to deviancy than simple sodomy.

Why would it be the best thing to do if it were to condemn you to eternal damnation? And why for cleanliness's sake would you go BEYOND simple sodomy...ew.

That's because sodomy is a sin, and let's face it: sinning is more fun. Still shouldn't do it.

Umm, yes, one should.

Umm, yes, one should.

Why? So they can get their dick all covered in a mixture of lube and shit?

Why would it be the best thing to do if it were to condemn you to eternal damnation?

You're only saying that because you've never tried.

And why for cleanliness's sake would you go BEYOND simple sodomy...ew.

*chuckles* you have a very....narrow perspective on the realms of possibilities.

Why? So they can get their dick all covered in a mixture of lube and shit?

Not everyone uses lube, but I know a lot of folks clean their colons and don't have caked-up fecal matter clogging their rectum.

Why?

Why not? And do bear in mind I don't care about your deity...

So they can get their dick all covered in a mixture of lube and shit?

I don't know what sort of creepy scat things you've done, but I've never had that happen. Perhaps you should have asked your partner to go to the loo first? Or have some fibre?

You're only saying that because you've never tried.



*chuckles* you have a very....narrow perspective on the realms of possibilities.

Um...no, never have.

So laughed the sinner right before God smote him down.

POOPY DICK

Um...no, never have.

So laughed the sinner right before God smote him down.

still waiting on that smoting thing....god takes his fucking time, doesn't he? And besides, I'm neither gay nor been a particular fan of anal. Merely stating that there's a whole lot of things one might call "deviant", many of which you haven't yet contimplated so it seems.

Why not? And do bear in mind I don't care about your deity...



I don't know what sort of creepy scat things you've done, but I've never had that happen. Perhaps you should have asked your partner to go to the loo first? Or have some fibre?

Dude, that's where poop comes from. Even if it's not there...somebody just took a dump outta there like only a few hours before. No wonder that's a sin.

Why would it be the best thing to do if it were to condemn you to eternal damnation?

I'll let you in on a little secret...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/DarkSideOfTheSpoon/hell.jpg

See, as I clearly detailed in the other thread, gays are far more prone to pride themselves on coarse acts, and generally hurl repugnant innuendo at heterosexuals. This is called "insecurity."

To those of you who think that you're with the "in-crowd" or whatever you have going on in your impressionable little minds, just remember this: Men are [extremely] easy. Unlike heterosexual sex, homosexual sex is not something special and it sure isn't hard to initiate with hornball men who will do anything that moves. So, don't act like everyone is missing out on something wonderful, please;)

You can't take away what never existed. Marriage has been defined as a relationship between males and females, exclusively, for all of recorded history.
That's incorrect.

I am aware of no major civilization, or even any primitive tribe in the most remote backwater, that has sanctioned same-sex "marriage."
Which is not the same as them not existing. The Nuer for instance certainly exist if the amount of literture about them is any indication. I also hesitate to believe that the native Americans didnt exist, I'm convinced they did and they didnt feel any need to stick to your straight and narrow definitions in regards to sexual identity and marriage.

The so-called "right" of "gays" to "marry" has never existed, and a few black-robed social sabateurs and sociopathic political panderers cannot change that fact.
Marriage has existed in many forms including forms in which females have married females, males have married males and transgendered people have married either males or females or both. You might not like it, you might wish to retain your ignorance about it but your black-robed sabotage and your political sociopathy cannot change these facts.

The only "fantasy" here is your fantasy that sexually deviant lifestyle choices have ever formed a basis for marriage.
Stated by yet another person who cares so deeply about marriage that they dont feel a need to learn a single thing about it before using their ignorance to justify limiting the freedom of others. If you cared half as much about marriage as you do about excluding and controlling others, you'd already know that not all societies have always stuck with a 'male to female' marriage policy. It's a fact, deal with it.

Dude, that's where poop comes from. Even if it's not there...somebody just took a dump outta there like only a few hours before. No wonder that's a sin.

Dude, babies and menstrual blood and uterine mucous discharge come from vaginas. They also smell like rotten fish. So, your point is?

Ganesha doesn't smite.

Homer Simpson would disagree.

"stop taunting Ganesha! You're only going to get more wrath!"

See, as I clearly detailed in the other thread, gays are far more prone to pride themselves on coarse acts, and generally hurl repugnant innuendo at heterosexuals.

This statement is completely separate from the above. To those of you who think that you're with the "in-crowd" or whatever you have going on in your impressionable little minds, just remember this: Men are [extremely] easy. Unlike heterosexual sex, homosexual sex is not something special and it sure isn't hard to initiate with hornball men who will do anything that moves. So, don't act like everyone is missing out on something wonderful, please;)

Amen, amen, amen. But apparently I'm the one to be condemned because I don't believe in finding alternative ways to do something that is pretty clear in how it's supposed to be conducted when you get right down to it. I bet the people who have been posting had really bad relationships with the teachers who taught them about the "birds and the bees."

See, as I clearly detailed in the other thread, gays are far more prone to pride themselves on coarse acts, and generally hurl repugnant innuendo at heterosexuals.

Erm.

Dude, that's where poop comes from. Even if it's not there...somebody just took a dump outta there like only a few hours before. No wonder that's a sin.

Um...no, never have.

So laughed the sinner right before God smote him down.

POOPY DICK

Looks like you're wrong.

Men are [extremely] easy.

I think you're projecting because you, yourself are easy or you are female and sleep with easy men.

Unlike heterosexual sex, homosexual sex is not something special and it sure isn't hard to initiate with hornball men who will do anything that moves.

Again, I think you're projecting because you find it difficult to initiate sex with a woman. Just my opinion, though, unlike your words of wisdom which are, of course, cold hard facts.

Dude, babies and menstrual blood and uterine mucous discharge come from vaginas. They also smell like rotten fish. So, your point is?

That guys have a dick and girls have a vag. Um...DUH!

Dude, babies and menstrual blood and uterine mucous discharge come from vaginas. They also smell like rotten fish. So, your point is?
I laugh at the man who tries to equal the vagina and the anus, or simply tries to make the vagina seem like something you don't want to get near.

To those of you who think that you're with the "in-crowd" or whatever you have going on in your impressionable little minds, just remember this: Men are [extremely] easy. Unlike heterosexual sex, homosexual sex is not something special and it sure isn't hard to initiate with hornball men who will do anything that moves. So, don't act like everyone is missing out on something wonderful, please;)

You seem to think "special" = "rare." To me, it seems more like jealousy in not only that gay sex is better, but also that it's more plentiful. Sorry about your sour grapes...

I laugh at the man who tries to equal the vagina and the anus

Of course not, they're on complete other sides of the body!

Amen, amen, amen. But apparently I'm the one to be condemned because I don't believe in finding alternative ways to do something that is pretty clear in how it's supposed to be conducted when you get right down to it. I bet the people who have been posting had really bad relationships with the teachers who taught them about the "birds and the bees."

Heh, I like you!:D
[No, not like that, gays.]

I laugh at the man who tries to equal the vagina and the anus, or simply tries to make the vagina seem like something you don't want to get near.

I laugh at the man who has never fucked a woman in the ass.

That guys have a dick and girls have a vag. Um...DUH!

I assume you meant to write guys have dicks. And of course, this is the result of evolution.

Amen, amen, amen. But apparently I'm the one to be condemned because I don't believe in finding alternative ways to do something that is pretty clear in how it's supposed to be conducted when you get right down to it. I bet the people who have been posting had really bad relationships with the teachers who taught them about the "birds and the bees."

I'm a heterosexual male who is appparently, unlike you and your new friend, secure with my sexuality and a bit learned in the ways of the world and don't think something is a sin because I find it "icky." I'm also not the one calling others POOPY DICK and in general acting like a bleeding rectal cavity. You can "amen" all you like, but your childish namecalling and disdain is about as spiritually motivated and in keeping with Christ's teachings as a cleveland steamer. If you want to make idiotic and baseless assertions about how I have bad relationships with teachers and am ignorant or whatever, go ahead, but you're basically only proving my point. Have a nice day, and go get yourself laid when you are old enough to drink real alcohol.

You seem to think "special" = "rare." To me, it seems more like jealousy in not only that gay sex is better, but also that it's more plentiful. Sorry about your sour grapes...
Why would I be jealous of something I could have any hour of the day?

That guys have a dick and girls have a vag. Um...DUH!

And guys have a dick and guys have an ass. And a mouth. And tongue. And hands. And another dick to play with... did I mention the dick?

See, as I clearly detailed in the other thread, gays are far more prone to pride themselves on coarse acts, and generally hurl repugnant innuendo at heterosexuals. This is called "insecurity."

Please. The sick shit here is all said by heterosexuals. Don't make me bust out the big guns.

Amen, amen, amen. But apparently I'm the one to be condemned because I don't believe in finding alternative ways to do something that is pretty clear in how it's supposed to be conducted when you get right down to it.

Why should someone, anyone, conform to YOUR version of what the "right" way to do something is?


I bet the people who have been posting had really bad relationships with the teachers who taught them about the "birds and the bees."

Oh on the contrary, people who are comfortable in their sexuality aren't the ones who typically were abused. In fact, given your obvious unease about sex, I wonder if you hadn't been the victim of one or more "bad touch" in your life.

Why would I be jealous of something I could have any hour of the day?

Because you obviously can't have it.

I'm a heterosexual male who is appparently, unlike you and your new friend, secure with my sexuality and a bit learned in the ways of the world and don't think something is a sin because I find it "icky." I'm also not the one calling others POOPY DICK and in general acting like a bleeding rectal cavity. You can "amen" all you like, but your childish namecalling and disdain is about as spiritually motivated and in keeping with Christ's teachings as a cleveland steamer. If you want to make idiotic and baseless assertions about how I have bad relationships with teachers and am ignorant or whatever, go ahead, but you're basically only proving my point. Have a nice day, and go get yourself laid when you are old enough to drink real alcohol.

Only in the most politically correct 'utopia' is it immature to scoff at people who insert their male organs into other mens' anuses.

Why would I be jealous of something I could have any hour of the day?

Please, like anyone would fuck you.

Only in the most politically correct 'utopia' is it immature to scoff at people who insert their male organs into other mens' anuses.

If by "politically correct 'utopia'" you mean "reality", then yes.

I'm a heterosexual male who is appparently, unlike you and your new friend, secure with my sexuality and a bit learned in the ways of the world and don't think something is a sin because I find it "icky." I'm also not the one calling others POOPY DICK and in general acting like a bleeding rectal cavity. You can "amen" all you like, but your childish namecalling and disdain is about as spiritually motivated and in keeping with Christ's teachings as a cleveland steamer. If you want to make idiotic and baseless assertions about how I have bad relationships with teachers and am ignorant or whatever, go ahead, but you're basically only proving my point. Have a nice day, and go get yourself laid when you are old enough to drink real alcohol.
I never attacked anyone or stepped outside the bounds of Christ's teachings. I'm simply trying to show how laughably disgusting sodomy is. I never called anyone "poopy dick"...I just said it. Never said, "you're a poopy dick, G.T.!", did I?

I assume you meant to write guys have dicks. And of course, this is the result of evolution.

Uh...I did. And evolution...let's not start.

Because you obviously can't have it.
No, I assure you, if I wanted to get rammed in the ass, I could have it. Fortunately, that is a major turn off for me;)

I laugh at the man who tries to equal the vagina and the anus, or simply tries to make the vagina seem like something you don't want to get near.

I would never equal them. Vaginas are yucky.

Only in the most politically correct 'utopia' is it immature to scoff at people who insert their male organs into other mens' anuses.

Personally I find great fun in scoffing at the immaturity of someone who calls it a "male organ".

No, I assure you, if I wanted to get rammed in the ass, I could have it. Fortunately, that is a major turn off for me;)

Bullshit. I want you to go out, get fucked up the ass, and come back with photographic evidence. Just because you can't keep it in your pants doesn't mean that other men can't.

No, I assure you, if I wanted to get rammed in the ass, I could have it. Fortunately, that is a major turn off for me

So, you can't indeed have sex as often as a gay man can. As I said - but sour grapes at not only better sex, but also more plentiful sex.

Please. The sick shit here is all said by heterosexuals. Don't make me bust out the big guns.
Huh?
I just read like 5 pervs raving about how they love getting it/giving it in the butt. :confused:

Only in the most politically correct 'utopia' is it immature to scoff at people who insert their male organs into other mens' anuses.

Ah, yes, the old political correct dismissal. Anyone who isn't acting like a ten year old gangsta-wannabe harassing people because of their sexual preferences, is a politically correct, liberal, utopian, marxist, communist, Democratic, New World Order-supporting, Michael-Moore-loving, welfare-queen-born slave!

Try harder next time.

And yes, you're being immature. Don't be a coward by trying to deny it. Admit it, revel in it, at least have some fun instead of pretending like you're some sort of academic. Otherwise what have you really gained? Nothing.

Why should someone, anyone, conform to YOUR version of what the "right" way to do something is?
Uh...look at the human body. It's not "my version."

Please, like anyone would fuck you.

For some reason, they do like to flatter themselves...

Huh?
I just read like 5 pervs raving about how they love getting it/giving it in the butt. :confused:

And all but Fass are heterosexual.

THis is just about the only part of your post that I agreed with. I think everyone should get civil unions, and then they can add whatever religious spin they want to it within their own religious communities.


i completely agree. governments should only recognize civil unions; leave religious unions to churches. it seems like a reasonable arrangement that all parties could accept. you go to the government to get your civil union papers. and then you go to a church to get your religious union papers. with respect to the government, the terms for 'marriage' should be univocal. call it a civil union. then different churches or secular humanist organizations can offer their own language, marriage or whatever.

Uh...look at the human body. It's not "my version."

Yes, lets look at it.

I can see at least...three places on a woman's body a penis fits. Four usually.

Five if we're getting creative.

I just read like 5 pervs raving about how they love getting it/giving it in the butt. :confused:

You say "perv" and "getting it/giving it in the butt" like they were bad things, which is weird.

So, you can't indeed have sex as often as a gay man can. As I said - but sour grapes at not only better sex, but also more plentiful sex.
Ha.
Yes, I'm so jealous, especially about the frequency of sex part!(You're bad at reverse psychology, buddy;) )
Not only do I not have to worry about AIDS, but I also won't have tumors in my intenstines and I won't have to wear a butt plug to keep fluid from oozing out of my enlarged anus down the road;)

And yes, you're being immature. Don't be a coward by trying to deny it. Admit it, revel in it, at least have some fun instead of pretending like you're some sort of academic. Otherwise what have you really gained? Nothing.

Oh, and I suppose the people who discuss loving to engage in sodomy are being perfectly mature?

You say "perv" and "getting it/giving it in the butt" like they were bad things, which is weird.
No, it's not.:rolleyes:

Yes, lets look at it.

I can see at least...three places on a woman's body a penis fits. Four usually.

Five if we're getting creative.

Six if she's had one of those operations that smokers sometime get when they have throat cancer.

Yes, lets look at it.

I can see at least...three places on a woman's body a penis fits. Four usually.

Five if we're getting creative.

Wow...you flunked biology, and you were born without common sense!

No, it's not.:rolleyes:

I know they're not bad. I'm just saying you claiming they are is weird.

I'm simply trying to show how laughably disgusting sodomy is.

If it was so laughingly disgusting, you wouldn't need to show it; and if it is so laughingly disgusting but people here don't think so, your idiotic statements are not going to be any more convincing than the concept itself.

So your real point here seems to be groping at your own sexuality. Probably you feel like a bit of a badass, a rebel by acting against what you consider "political correct."

I never called anyone "poopy dick"...I just said it.

Mm, sure. I guess you were just throwing the phrase out there, to show how mature you are.

Wow...you flunked biology, and you were born without common sense!

Vagina, ass, mouth, tits, eyesocket. That's five.

Oh, and I suppose the people who discuss loving to engage in sodomy are being perfectly mature?

discussing sex, sexuality, and sexual acts they enjoy in a rational, non condescending, non judgemental manner?

yeah, actually, I'd call that pretty mature. In fact I'd go so far as to say that that is actually a spendid example of maturity.

In fact, getting uncomfortable offended or squemish about the topic is pretty much the pinacle of immaturity.

Uh...look at the human body. It's not "my version."

Well evolution/God made anal sex feel pretty damn good.

Uh...look at the human body. It's not "my version."

LMAO.:p

No, I assure you, if I wanted to get rammed in the ass, I could have it.

Those hookers don't count.

Oh, and I suppose the people who discuss loving to engage in sodomy are being perfectly mature?

Whether they are immature or not is irrelevant to whether you are immature.

Wow...you flunked biology, and you were born without common sense!

that's shocking since I've on more than one occassion stuck mine in three different places of the same woman, in the same day.

And shockingly...it didn't get stuck.

Ha.
Yes, I'm so jealous, especially about the frequency of sex part!(You're bad at reverse psychology, buddy;) )

And you're bad at disguising your jealousy.

Not only do I not have to worry about AIDS, but I also won't have tumors in my intenstines

Neither do I, but you shouldn't be so sure about those tumours. Intestinal cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer.

and I won't have to wear a butt plug to keep fluid from oozing out of my enlarged anus down the road;)

Let me guess, you know next to nothing about the physioanatomy of the human sphincter ani and pelvic girdle?

Whether they are immature or not is irrelevant to whether you are immature.

Besides, we know we were being immature. That was the point.

discussing sex, sexuality, and sexual acts they enjoy in a rational, non condescending, non judgemental manner?

yeah, actually, I'd call that pretty mature. In fact I'd go so far as to say that that is actually a spendid example of maturity.

In fact, getting uncomfortable offended or squemish about the topic is pretty much the pinacle of immaturity.

Okay, then let's see you bring the topic up in normal, everyday conversation, say, with your boss.

If it was so laughingly disgusting, you wouldn't need to show it;
You don't need to show it. That's why you and your buddies instantly jump on the "poopy dick is immature" bandwagon. Normal, everyday people are, in general, appalled by two men having sexual relations of any sort.

Let me guess, you know next to nothing about the physioanatomy of the human sphincter ani and pelvic girdle?

Let me guess, you haven't read that an enlarged sphincter is a possible effect of having repeated anal sex (rare though it might be)?

Okay, then let's see you bring the topic up in normal, everyday conversation, say, with your boss.

Hold on, I'm going to apply for a job as a cameraman for pornographic films then get back to you.

Okay, then let's see you bring the topic up in normal, everyday conversation, say, with your boss.

Why would I discuss any aspects of my personal life at work? I suggest you learn the meaning of the word professionalism.

Normal, everyday people are, in general, appalled by two men having sexual relations of any sort.

Where the fuck do you live? Bizarro World? All the people I hang out with find sweaty mansex perfectly acceptable at the very least.

Normal, everyday people are, in general, appalled by two men having sexual relations of any sort.

See, that's just it. Normal, healthy, well adjusted people in general don't give a flying fuck all with what consenting adults do to themselves

I like the odds of Read My Mind becoming the next Ted Haggard.

See, that's just it. Normal, healthy, well adjusted people in general don't give a flying fuck all with what consenting adults do to themselves

No, but they apparently find it disgusting enough that they vote in large numbers to ban gay marriage.

Let me guess, you know next to nothing about the physioanatomy of the human sphincter ani and pelvic girdle?
To the contrary:
The internal anal sphincter (an involuntary muscle) does not look favorably upon foreign objects attempting to enter the rectum. This muscle relaxes during defecation, but remains in a contracted state otherwise, which seals the anal opening.

For a period following receptive anal sex, the internal anal sphincter is stretched and is unable to contract strongly, thereby failing to completely seal the anal opening until the muscle regains its original tone. Repetitive anal sex, especially with large penises or rectal insertions of large objects may damage the internal anal sphincter, thereby preventing complete sealing of the anus, and leading to fecal mucus seepage (anal or fecal incontinence). Additionally, anal sex exacerbates fecal seepage by stimulating colonic motility, which sends feces from the colon down into the lower rectum. (6)


S. E. Goldstone, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: a medical handbook for men (Dell Publishing, New York, NY, 1999

Let me guess, you haven't read that an enlarged sphincter is a possible effect of having repeated anal sex (rare though it might be)?

And prolapsed uterus is a possible effect of repeated vaginal sex. So is transcisio frenuli praeputii, as well. Rare though they may be. So?

No, but they apparently find it disgusting enough that they vote in large numbers to ban gay marriage.

your grasp of politics is lacking.

You don't need to show it.

Then why are you two feeling the need to "inform" us all of how disgusting it supposedly is? Apparently, you think it needs showing.

That's why you and your buddies instantly jump on the "poopy dick is immature" bandwagon. Normal, everyday people are, in general, appalled by two men having sexual relations of any sort.

"Poopy dick" is pretty immature, yes. Or maybe you wrote your graduate paper and you used phrases like "poopy dick." Also, because you and your newfound loveboy use idiot phrases to disassociate yourself from the Evil Homosexuality, such as by calling it "sodomy" and "deviant" and "appalling" and referring to yourself as "normal and everyday."

What does that last comment even mean anyway? that Fassigen isn't an everyday person? Perhaps he's only every other day, or even every month and a half? Nonsensical mental masturbation designed to cover up your simple bigotry.

I like the odds of Read My Mind becoming the next Ted Haggard.

Please. I'll at least go down (no pun intended) in a blaze of glory if that happens, openly making out with my male prostitute and doing coke right there on TV. Unfortunately for you (and what probably turns you on), that will not happen.

Normal, everyday people are, in general, appalled by two men having sexual relations of any sort.

Interesting. I can count the "normal, everyday people" I know on one hand, out of a rather large number of friends, family, and acquaintances.

your grasp of politics is lacking.
HUH?
Actually, no. He was completely correct, moron. If normal people didn't care what others did with each other, they wouldn't vote in large numbers to ban gay marriage.:rolleyes:

your grasp of politics is lacking.

I love how you make vague points without specifying. It's just so...ridiculous.

To the contrary:

S. E. Goldstone, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: a medical handbook for men (Dell Publishing, New York, NY, 1999

Umm, you have read that book haven't you? And not just the out of context part quoted on amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com? Hilarious site by the way. Like an exposé on homophobic obsession. Next time you plagiarise from it, you might want to remove references to their own footnotes.

Please. I'll at least go down (no pun intended) in a blaze of glory if that happens, openly making out with my male prostitute and doing coke right there on TV. Unfortunately for you (and what probably turns you on), that will not happen.

Yeesh, I feel bad for anyone who bet on him becoming the next Ted Haggard. Payoff just went from 7-1 to 3-1 with that statement.

HUH?
Actually, no. He was completely correct, moron. If normal people didn't care what others did with each other, they wouldn't vote in large numbers to ban gay marriage.:rolleyes:

Oh, so if people vote a certain way, that means they do it because they are "appalled" and think the alternative is "disgusting?" I guess they also like saying "POOPY DICK" too...

HUH?
Actually, no. He was completely correct, moron. If normal people didn't care what others did with each other, they wouldn't vote in large numbers to ban gay marriage.:rolleyes:

I think the reasons mentioned in this thread provide large justification for people disliking the idea that are not directly related to gay sex.

Plus there is that whole "half the people you meet are below average" rule of thumb to consider.

HUH?
Actually, no. He was completely correct, moron. If normal people didn't care what others did with each other, they wouldn't vote in large numbers to ban gay marriage.:rolleyes:

And since they haven't one can conclude that normal people don't care.

Oh, so if people vote a certain way, that means they do it because they are "appalled" and think the alternative is "disgusting?" I guess they also like saying "POOPY DICK" too...
Yes...They don't vote it down because they think it's an acceptable alternative to marriage.

I love how you make vague points without specifying. It's just so...ridiculous.

I don't really have to specify, you're a walking stereotype m'boy.

But if you want some specification, sure. Here's a hint...read the thread you're posting in..like...right the fuck now.

:rolleyes: And since they haven't one can conclude that normal people don't care.
I guess you didn't follow the midterms, moron.

Yes...They don't vote it down because they think it's an acceptable alternative to marriage.

and what, pray tell, does that have to do with SEX? Or, more importantly, and stick with me cause this might get tough...do you actually believe people vote against gay marriage because they think if gays can't get married they'll stop having sex?

Whoever believes that must be as stupid as you are.

HUH?
Actually, no. He was completely correct, moron. If normal people didn't care what others did with each other, they wouldn't vote in large numbers to ban gay marriage.:rolleyes:

That's true. Next thing you know the sooties will be coming for our women.

Nip it in the bud is what I say.

and what, pray tell, does that have to do with SEX?
Everything?

:rolleyes:
I guess you didn't follow the midterms, moron.

Yeah, where the guys running on the platform of banning gay marriage lost. And, of course, the inbred retards in Kansas or whatever hick state passed those laws don't count as normal. For one, normal people don't have webbed fingers.

Yes...They don't vote it down because they think it's an acceptable alternative to marriage.

No. They had plenty of reasons. "It's disgusting" and "POOPY DICK" may well not be among them. Just because they are for you doesn't mean it is for everyone else.

:rolleyes:
I guess you didn't follow the midterms, moron.

that's the second time in 5 minutes you've used the word "moron".

May I suggest new material? It makes you look very....12ish.

Well, I'm out.

I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY I LOVE SODOMY :sniper:

Everything?

let me repeat my question.

Or, more importantly, and stick with me cause this might get tough...do you actually believe people vote against gay marriage because they think if gays can't get married they'll stop having sex?

Whoever believes that must be as stupid as you are.