NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. I'm sick and tired of both sideso f the fence acting like jerks. "DEATH TO FAGS!" vs. "WEEEEE PRETTY COLORS!" The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.

There is a coming debate?

And even if this issue is goin' to get settled, we've still got lots and lots of issues to disagree and flame and burn.

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Separate but equal? Oh yeah, that worked out brilliantly the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) around.

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides.
Seperate but equal is fucking disgusting. No one should have to accept it as a "compromise".

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself.

How schizophrenic. And no, I will not shut up. Your ilk will never be able to shut us up ever again. We will be in your bigoted little face until you die. And our cause will outlive you.

People will "shut up," to use your own words, when homosexuals aren't hated simply because of the intolerance of the individual, and have the same rights as a heterosexual person.


People may not have liked the non-violent protests of the blacks when they earned their freedom during segregation, or the protests of women to get their equal rights, but honestly? The sad part is that it will be perfectly acceptable in about 10/15 years, assuming we all don't die before then.

I'm with the pretty colours on this one. :)

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself.
...




The non-Republican gays and liberals will not shut up until gays become first class citizens, and rightfully so.

If they ban all hetro stuff in public then its cool with me if they ban all gay stuff .... but man they would have to ban everything for straight people as sod going to all the brazialian street parties and stuff if i cant perv on the odd hot woman and nighton the town with out checking out the scantly clad women ... and gah would it mean i couldnt snog a future Mrs Sofar when not in the house??? i might as well go religious lol

(though if no gay parades mean i dont have men perving over me .. and i am so hot they cant resit lololol .... then thats way cool :D)


(and the only people to be annoyed with imo are the bi men lol as there greedy feckers with no benifit for the straight male lol)

(and awe at the colours in your first post :D atleast you gave both sides equal 'STFU' lol though the death bit is a bit harsh compared to the weeee bit ... but only pointed that out to be annoying lolol)

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. I'm sick and tired of both sideso f the fence acting like jerks. "DEATH TO FAGS!" vs. "WEEEEE PRETTY COLORS!" The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.

Oh, no! We might see men kissing!! Think of the children!!

People thought interracial marriage was bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned. They were on the wrong side of history and morals. So are you.

Once you actually stop caring then they won't need pride parades because they won't have to show that they are not ashamed of who they are.

I don't think that many people want to be defined by their sexuality, but they don't want to be ashamed of it either.

Heterosexuality is celebrated in most movies, television shows, ads, billboards, magazines, calenders, and on and on, every minute of the day-and you can't handle an annual parade? Wuss.

Fucking unclench. You don't like homosexuality? Don't date a dude. Otherwise fuck off. As long as their are people that tell them they should 'be quiet' about it and 'hide it' then they have reasons for parades and to tell you, "Fuck off, I don't have any reason to be ashamed."

snip.... You live in a nation that affords you the right to speak your mind as you just have. However that same right extends to every other American including gays.

We could just surrender our rights to freedom of speech and association. That would shut everyone up wouldn't it. Is that the type of country that you want to live in?

I'm with the pretty colours on this one. :)
! :fluffle:

Fucking unclench.
Ah, no wai, that'd just be inviting them, wouldn't it now?

Ah, no wai, that'd just be inviting them, wouldn't it now?

Quality.

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned...
Oh. Sorry. Homosexuality is not going to be banned. And why not? Well, because we keep speaking up to prevent that from happening! Maybe when you stop speaking against homosexuals, we will stop feeling the need to be so vocally supportive. So really, your problem goes away when your prejudice does. Hm.

The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?


What is wrong with people who enjoy dressing up in fun costumes and having a big party. It is perfectly OK to do on Halloween... and Mardi Gras. If that doesn't bother you, then it should be no problem at gay pride either.

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...


Nope. Doesn't work for homosexuals who are then second class citizens. And if you don't want to see people of any sort kissing, look away when they do it. Problem solved.

Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.

If you don't want to take part in the debate, why start it up again?

How about full and equal rights for everyone? Let's get rid of "marriage", leave that to the church, and let everyone come to the government to get Civil Unions as long they are in a consentual relationship and are of age.

How about we stop allowing for anti-homosexual hate speech and anti-homosexual hate crimes? How about we ensure de jure and de facto equality for homosexuals?

And for fuck's sake, how about EVERYONE cuts down on the public displays of affection?

Once you actually stop caring then they won't need pride parades because they won't have to show that they are not ashamed of who they are.

I don't think that many people want to be defined by their sexuality, but they don't want to be ashamed of it either.

Heterosexuality is celebrated in most movies, television shows, ads, billboards, magazines, calenders, and on and on, every minute of the day-and you can't handle an annual parade? Wuss.

Fucking unclench. You don't like homosexuality? Don't date a dude. Otherwise fuck off. As long as their are people that tell them they should 'be quiet' about it and 'hide it' then they have reasons for parades and to tell you, "Fuck off, I don't have any reason to be ashamed."

wow ace reply .. but i think hes opting to ban all that hetro stuff so dont be to harsh of him as the stuff on TV films music etc isnt needed .... and its a bit hardcore with some of the outfits ... but come on gay pride parades ... its just a good excuse to get drunk and dress up in cool fancy dress (think party during the days wahey lol)
(id go just because it looks like an ace excuse to party .....but id hate breaking so many hearts (and getting turned down by all the women grrrrr) ... so havent gone ... yet lol (doubt i will ever but ive not been to all the other parades yet (there not for straight people only but more of them there and the fun one got to be higher on my list til i get old and hitched lol)


It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides.

gah i totally missed that bit .... sod that ... you are calling either my sister a man or her husband a girl if you think they are for for gays only ..... the only reason my sister went for a civil wedding is because nuns at her private school and my religious granny basically tried to force religion on her .... she wanted loads of the church wedding stuff and would have been a normal type not going to church with christian beliefs sort of person ... but god damn religious bullies made her opt for civil service .... and i am tempted to go the same route just because of idiot christians like yourself that force church down my neck

Who cares whether you fuck the same sex or the opposite sex. It's such a non-issue.

How about full and equal rights for everyone?

Good idea. Let's do that.

Let's get rid of "marriage", leave that to the church, and let everyone come to the government to get Civil Unions as long they are in a consentual relationship and are of age.

I see you are talking the "destroy the village in order to save it" approach to marriage. Sorry, but the right to marriage is a fundamental human right. We aren't going to throw it away merely because some of you are squeamish about the uses of that right.

How about we stop allowing for anti-homosexual hate speech and anti-homosexual hate crimes?

Why on earth would we do that? You think we should allow hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation? (And, btw, we don't have hate speech laws in the United States)>

How about we ensure de jure and de facto equality for homosexuals?

Good idea again. Why don't we? Obviously nothing you've suggested takes us in that direction, however.

And for fuck's sake, how about EVERYONE cuts down on the public displays of affection?

Why? Again because some of you are squeamish?

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned

Well, that's the answer, isn't it?

Because people like you, with your bigotry, make it an issue.

but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself.

Why should people hide in closets (or bedrooms, which are just large closets) because you think they're disgusting?

How about we stop allowing for anti-homosexual hate speech

I seem to remember an argument with you about hate speech laws... have you changed your mind?

And for fuck's sake, how about EVERYONE cuts down on the public displays of affection?

No way. Public displays of affection are a positive good.

No way. Public displays of affection are a positive good.

To a degree. But there's some stuff I just plain don't want to see.

Still, I accept, not tolerate, but accept all sexual orientations and relationships as long as they are based on mutually informed consent and the relationship itself is based on mutual love and respect. Some things I might find strange, but that doesn't mean those relationships deserve any kind of restrictions.

Why can't people just shut up about Morons?

Personally, I think Morons are bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as they keep it to themselves. I'm sick and tired of both sides of the fence acting like jerks.

Speaking as a gay man, I have to fall back on a certain position-basically, that no one forces you in the closet. You go there by yourself because it's unnatural. There are several contributing factors to this. Largely, homosexuality was accepted early on, except by the Jews, whose dogma includes a prohibition against man-on-man sex-the book of Exodus makes it clear that for a man to lay with a man as if with a woman is an abomination to the Lord. This stricture was largely ignored by the world at large, until the Othmans threatened Europe. Their shock troops were largely homosexual, which caused the Pope to dust off the Jewish prohibition as a stopgap measure to fight off the Muslim invasion. While pagan prohibitions on homosexuality were largely matters of social status, upper classes not bottoming to lower classes, this got caught up in the politics of the time, and Christianity largely opposed homosexuality. The Anglicans, for example, are very gay-friendly, but American culture, which is by and large a Christian culture, is very anti-homosexual. We hide ourselves out of our own shame, based in the culture we are raised, not because of cultural prohibitions. For the most part, we do grow out of it eventually.

Sorry, but the right to marriage is a fundamental human right.

Equality under law is a fundamental human right. It is illegitimate to offer full marriage to opposite-sex couples and only civil unions to same-sex couples.

I fail to see how the term "marriage" as opposed to "civil union" is a fundamental human right, though. Outside the context of promoting an unequal social status, what's the difference?

We aren't going to throw it away merely because some of you are squeamish about the uses of that right.

No, but I don't think this is KSP's motive, nor even the motive of most people who advocate the switch.

It's just a convenient way of avoiding having to deal with the annoying and nonsensical (but nevertheless common and popular) whining from the Right about changing the definition of marriage.

There is a coming debate?

And even if this issue is goin' to get settled, we've still got lots and lots of issues to disagree and flame and burn.

Aye to that

Why can't people just shut up about Morons?

Personally, I think Morons are bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as they keep it to themselves. I'm sick and tired of both sides of the fence acting like jerks.

At first I thought this said Mormons. *facepalm*

To a degree. But there's some stuff I just plain don't want to see.

Then avert your eyes. I see no reason why the personal taste of people nearby should limit people's rights to do what they want with consenting partners, even in public places.

I am disgusted by Bush/Cheney '04 bumper stickers, but that doesn't mean they should have been banned.

This stricture was largely ignored by the world at large, until the Othmans threatened Europe.

While my gay history pre-1850 or so is pretty weak, I don't think this is true.

If I recall correctly, at least nominal prohibitions on homosexuality date at least back to Constantine, and hate rhetoric and persecution happened whenever there were crises, on the grounds that homosexuality was partially responsible for divine punishment.

Edit: And it's worth noting that the Greek tolerance for homosexuality (at least as far as we know, which isn't very far) seems to have been reserved for certain limited kinds of same-sex relationships... exclusive homosexuality, and especially a preference for being penetrated, was looked down upon as effeminate and disgusting.

Once you actually stop caring then they won't need pride parades because they won't have to show that they are not ashamed of who they are.

I don't think that many people want to be defined by their sexuality, but they don't want to be ashamed of it either.

Heterosexuality is celebrated in most movies, television shows, ads, billboards, magazines, calenders, and on and on, every minute of the day-and you can't handle an annual parade? Wuss.

Fucking unclench. You don't like homosexuality? Don't date a dude. Otherwise fuck off. As long as their are people that tell them they should 'be quiet' about it and 'hide it' then they have reasons for parades and to tell you, "Fuck off, I don't have any reason to be ashamed."Yay!

Nicely, nicely done.
*bows*

At first I thought this said Mormons. *facepalm*

Don't get me started on Mormons!

Heres what the government should do.

Either get the fuck out out of marriage completely, no taxes on it, no tax exemptions or anything else, OR, it allows gay marriage.

Why can't people just shut up about Morons?

Personally, I think Morons are bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as they keep it to themselves. I'm sick and tired of both sides of the fence acting like jerks.

But what about "debate"?!?
Are you drinking the anti-Moron Kool-Aid?

I don't care what any of you do as long as I don't have to continually hear about this crap any more. New topic anyone?

I don't care what any of you do as long as I don't have to continually hear about this crap any more. New topic anyone?

Translated ... *b*u*m*p*

I don't care what any of you do as long as I don't have to continually hear about this crap any more. New topic anyone?

It's the cycle...just wait a little while and something else will come along.

I don't mind heterosexuals as long as they act gay in public!

This debate wouldn't go away, we have right-wing Christians attempting to wipe this "homo" plague away to "clean" the country but in reality all that does is provoke activists on the opposite side to become more active.

Why can't people just shut up about Morons?

Personally, I think Morons are bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as they keep it to themselves. I'm sick and tired of both sides of the fence acting like jerks.

GOD HATES MORONS!!!!!
GOD HATES MORONS!!!!
GOD HATES MORONS!!!!

/Phelpsmode.

in europe, isnt it actually cool to be homosexual?

i think that homosexual people are fighting for what they deserve, and that they should have equal rights as us heterosexual people.

just because we have differnt sexual desires doesnt mean that we are superior. it is very possible that homosexuals are the actaul normal people, and all of us are the ones with a sexual anomaly.

they have the right to parade all that they want, just as everyone else is. they should do what they believe is right, untill they get something done.

a homosexual pervert has just as much right to look at you as the average everyday pervert. its not okay to do that, and many heterosexual men are guilty of oggling women, but nobody seems to care.... but when something weird happens... those red flags of religion come up....

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. I'm sick and tired of both sideso f the fence acting like jerks. "DEATH TO FAGS!" vs. "WEEEEE PRETTY COLORS!" The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.

http://www.tomalberts.com/galleries/gaypride2006/pics/gay_pride_balloons.jpg
http://www.vespinoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/301167449_ad82cb79d5.jpg

Because society is moving toward increasing tolerance of differences because of the many differences that are allowed legally in our society. It truly is a melting pot. As opposed to 400 years ago where you might be sentenced to death for your race, political views, religion, or sexuality. So discussions are now really happening and people are reacting vocally to the fight rather than physically.

Women had to attain equality, minority races had to fight to gain equality (with African-Americans leading the fight), and now those of a minority sexuality must fight perhaps with less physical intensity to gain equality.

i totally disaggree that there's anything wrong with it, other then its just not my personal taste. i definately wish people would not use it, or anything else for that matter, as an excuse to harrass ANYone!

there are somethings i do get tired of hearing about. mostly they are things that involve hatered, prejudices, chauvanisms. i really believe there is no moral excuse for any prejudice of any kind, idiological, economic, lifestyle, ethnic, any of that or any other.

i think freedom is a very good thing, but no government in any form creates it, nor does a very good job of protecting it either. though many, if not most, try to claim to.

yah the gay thing is just one of many i wish people would shut up with the endless comming up of excuses to bash.

if someone thinks their religeon tells them to be prejudiced against anything, they're probably missinterpreting it. and even if they're not, well that still anyother thing i wish they'd keep to themselves too.

i mean if they want to talk about how good their beliefs make them feel or something, that's fine, but all this, how everything else is bad if it isn't how they want to pretend to see the world or something, you know, that's not bennifiting anyone, even themselves, and i don't believe that's what any of the revealers of ANY organized belief had in mind either.

what goes on between people who aggree with each other about it, without one being pressured by the other or anything, that's really nobody's bussiness but their own.

i have one prejudice of my own, and that's against biggots of EVERY stripe.

=^^=
.../\...

Sel Appa, that is just you're ingrained reactionary thought processes kicking in, your sickened and repulsed by different and (to you) alien behavior, it's just a primitive/instinctive thought pattern.

But be aware, you can beat it!

*reads thread title*
*laughs*
I didn't say anything... and now you've gone and opened up the discussion again.

Snip

Perhaps you should be the one shutting up. And growing up for that matter, that was such a childish display of intolerance.

I don't mind heterosexuals as long as they act gay in public!

Hehe :D

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. I'm sick and tired of both sideso f the fence acting like jerks. "DEATH TO FAGS!" vs. "WEEEEE PRETTY COLORS!" The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.

So with a title like yours for a post, do we need to answer??

Personally, I'm a self-repressed heterosexual[1] who doesn't mind what people do in public as long as it's decent[2] and mutually consensual, but am far too self-conscious to make any kind of overt display myself. Possibly that's why I'm currently single... :)

You (and I, and everyone else) probably don't notice when ones own preferences are catered for, against noting every instance of incident that goes against their own comfort zone. Public heterosexual kissing goes on as a matter of course, but the one who dislikes the homosexual version would see the (probably far, far lower frequency of, due to the existing stigmas) the homosexual version 'taking over the world', whereas an out-and-proud same-sex couple would feel under-represented even if in a truly 50:50 "who kisses who in the street" scenario.

(On top of that, I suspect that the sight of 'screaming queens' also embarrasses more 'homely' homosexual couples, and the lovey-dovey heterosexual behaviour often seen in newly-weds can be far too saccharin-sweet, too, for a more settled married couples, so it isn't just in the 'other' direction where these things cause a stir.)


Anyhow, speaking as myself, given the current inequality of treatment I'll probably give more leeway to those who are 'coming out' to let them have their fun, in parades and such. Insofar as a 'straight pride' march would seem to me to be a pointless exercise whose only purpose would be to aggravate, not inform.


[1] Barring the old argument that there are very few people who are 100% either way. Maybe I'll find a partner who is a MOTSS, in the future, where we mutually care for each other.

[2] Equal across all directions of sexuality, so a little subtle manual action under the cover of a picnic blanket that doesn't attract an audience[3] is Ok for all types of couples, rampant hoards of any description annexing a corner of the children's playground for acts in full view of the kids would not, even if it was all heterosexuals pairings using the classic missionary position.

[3] Apart from those who want to perv, if the couple concerned are Ok with that...

Sel, perhaps instead of being bigoted and fearing/hating that which you don't understand or is strange, why don't you try learning about it? Learn about homosexuality. Learn about homosexual people. Open your mind friend. You'll see...they don't bite...unless you're into that. :D

How's about why did you have to bring this up again, you cretin?

"aye, we should shut up"
*INEVITABLY LONG AND STUPID DEBATE ENSUES*

Jeeeeesus Christ...

I said it once (got sigged by Ifreann) and I'll say it again:

I'm still of the theory that people that condemn sexual behavior X between consenting adults wish they had the nerve to engage in X.

Yes, that includes people that go "should be banned" and "separate but equal".

Once you actually stop caring then they won't need pride parades because they won't have to show that they are not ashamed of who they are.

I don't think that many people want to be defined by their sexuality, but they don't want to be ashamed of it either.

Heterosexuality is celebrated in most movies, television shows, ads, billboards, magazines, calenders, and on and on, every minute of the day-and you can't handle an annual parade? Wuss.

Fucking unclench. You don't like homosexuality? Don't date a dude. Otherwise fuck off. As long as their are people that tell them they should 'be quiet' about it and 'hide it' then they have reasons for parades and to tell you, "Fuck off, I don't have any reason to be ashamed."

Winner.

Seperate but equal is fucking disgusting. No one should have to accept it as a "compromise".

There's nothing really wrong with "separate but equal" anymore than there is something wrong with magical unicorns. But like magical unicorns, the concept does not exist in the real world.

While I think people should fight for their equal rights, I'm almost with Sel Appa about this. The subject has become more politicized than it should, and I see responses to it, like "protection of marriage" or "traditional family values" as simply attempts by a party that has no interest in actually helping the poor get votes. It's become almost a gimmick.

I agree. STFU GAY BASTARDS, & GTFO.
*shakes head*

Farewell, young n00b.

I agree. Just shaddap already!

Why should anyone have to shut up about it?

Don't want to hear it? don't discuss it.

Fucking unclench. You don't like homosexuality? Don't date a dude. Otherwise fuck off. As long as their are people that tell them they should 'be quiet' about it and 'hide it' then they have reasons for parades and to tell you, "Fuck off, I don't have any reason to be ashamed."
As much as I would be quite happy to agree with this on the equality point, I would actually be pretty annoyed if someone decided it would be a good idea to have a heterosexual pride parade. Not because it would be an expression of a viewpoint, but because it would feel like an expression of Allegience. Kind of a "Party if you're one of us!" sort of do, and I really, really hate those things, whether it's a sports fest, an exclusive religious holiday, a national event or whatever.

As much as I would be quite happy to agree with this on the equality point, I would actually be pretty annoyed if someone decided it would be a good idea to have a heterosexual pride parade. Not because it would be an expression of a viewpoint, but because it would feel like an expression of Allegience. Kind of a "Party if you're one of us!" sort of do, and I really, really hate those things, whether it's a sports fest, an exclusive religious holiday, a national event or whatever.

Did you somehow think that statement was a call for a 'heterosexual' pride parade?

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides.

No, it won't, because civil unions aren't marriage. Even if they aren't marriage in name only, they still aren't marriage.. and if the government is going to allow people of one sexual orientation marry their chosen partner, they should do so for the other.

There's not a day I don't wake up and thank whatever God might be up there that I live in Canada instead of The United States of Assbackwards. We actually have gay marriage up here; not civil unions, but gay marriage. Has society collapsed? Has God turned us into a firestorm? No.

As for not "shutting up" about it, for hundreds of years people like me would've been hung, or burned, or stoned.. It's still recent that I wouldn't even be diagnosed with a mental illness, let alone be free to love and marry who I choose. I'm going to talk about it, I'm going to be happy about it, and yes, I'm going to be proud of it, because it's a wonderful time I live in where I'm free to be happy.

Did you somehow think that statement was a call for a 'heterosexual' pride parade?

The problem with heterosexual pride parades as that straight people already have them all the time - they just don't notice how up in your face heterosexual they are every single day. In this omnipresent noise of heterosexuality we're all surrounded by every day, they can only pick out the non-heterosexual. Also, the people who fail to see how heterosexuality permeates society like wet on a rag and thus go on about starting a "straight pride parade" never want to start it for other reasons than to be anti-gay, and show that they can't stand one day of the year when they're not in the centre.

Once you actually stop caring then they won't need pride parades because they won't have to show that they are not ashamed of who they are.

I don't think that many people want to be defined by their sexuality, but they don't want to be ashamed of it either.

Heterosexuality is celebrated in most movies, television shows, ads, billboards, magazines, calenders, and on and on, every minute of the day-and you can't handle an annual parade? Wuss.

Fucking unclench. You don't like homosexuality? Don't date a dude. Otherwise fuck off. As long as their are people that tell them they should 'be quiet' about it and 'hide it' then they have reasons for parades and to tell you, "Fuck off, I don't have any reason to be ashamed."

This deserves to be on every page in this thread.

Why can't people just shut up about homosexuality?

Sorry, I can't reply. I'm stuck in a time paradox.

irony fully intentional

The problem with heterosexual pride parades as that straight people already have them all the time - they just don't notice how up in your face heterosexual they are every single day. In this omnipresent noise of heterosexuality we're all surrounded by every day, they can only pick out the non-heterosexual. Also, the people who fail to see how heterosexuality permeates society like wet on a rag and thus go on about starting a "straight pride parade" never want to start it for other reasons than to be anti-gay, and show that they can't stand one day of the year when they're not in the centre.
<.< How did I get caught up in this? I know that, I kinda already said that...

<.< How did I get caught up in this? I know that, I kinda already said that...

I know you did. That was an agreement with you - sometimes motivations need to be repeated.

<.< How did I get caught up in this?

You entered the thread. Bad move.


*looks around* Shit! :eek:

Did you somehow think that statement was a call for a 'heterosexual' pride parade?
Erm, no. I didn't. But you were saying that gay pride events are in response to the "icky factor" that most people (including SA here) seem to flaunt, and I'm not so sure I like that on principle.

My point was that the idea of a "Het Pride" strikes me as irritating because it would support a sort of segregated identity of "heterosexuals". I certainly wouldn't want people today making a big deal of their own heterosexuality. It would (and does) come across as deliberately confrontational in a world where people are supposedly free to choose/adhere to (delete according to understanding of sexual preference theory) their own sexual preferences.

Surely promoting either of the two in isolation isn't the best way to pressure society into acknowledging its internal variation? I mean, look at what that kind of thinking has done to American Politics! It's all Conflict and no Resolution when each side is told to drift to their respective extremes.

People thought interracial marriage was bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned. They were on the wrong side of history and morals. So are you.

Well said.

I'm not even going to bother explaining why wanting homosexuality to be "banned" is both disgusting and profoundly moronic; that should be obvious to anyone who can think.

There is no rational reason why homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry the person they want to be with.

I also find it hugely ironic when bigots start ranting and raving about the gay pride. There probably wouldn't be a gay pride if bigots hadn't tried to silence -and discriminate against- homosexuals in the first place.

How about full and equal rights for everyone? Let's get rid of "marriage", leave that to the church, and let everyone come to the government to get Civil Unions as long they are in a consentual relationship and are of age.

How about we stop allowing for anti-homosexual hate speech and anti-homosexual hate crimes? How about we ensure de jure and de facto equality for homosexuals?

And for fuck's sake, how about EVERYONE cuts down on the public displays of affection?

Actually that's not a bad idea. Call it marriage if you want, but legally it's all civil unions.

Other than that, another thing that I'm tired of is people comparing apples to oranges. Different skin colors marrying is nothing near homosexuals marrying.

Actually that's not a bad idea. Call it marriage if you want, but legally it's all civil unions.

Other than that, another thing that I'm tired of is people comparing apples to oranges. Different skin colors marrying is nothing near homosexuals marrying.Why not? Both features, skin color and sexuality, are properties that a person has by birth. I am more concerned about folks like you, whose mental abilities are not determined by genetic setup but by education, or as in your case, lack thereof.

Actually that's not a bad idea. Call it marriage if you want, but legally it's all civil unions.

Other than that, another thing that I'm tired of is people comparing apples to oranges. Different skin colors marrying is nothing near homosexuals marrying.

Right. Two responsible adults facing discrimination and being forbidden to marry because of their physical attributes.

Nope. Nothing in common at all.

Why not? Both features, skin color and sexuality, are properties that a person has by birth. I am more concerned about folks like you, whose mental abilities are not determined by genetic setup but by education, or as in your case, lack thereof.

My God...did UB just say something REASONABLE?!

Fucking unclench. You don't like homosexuality?
Ah, no wai, that'd just be inviting them, wouldn't it now?

I personally hope the OP & others like him get a gf who's really into pegging.

Why not? Both features, skin color and sexuality, are properties that a person has by birth. I am more concerned about folks like you, whose mental abilities are not determined by genetic setup but by education, or as in your case, lack thereof.

Now see I only flamed the extremists...

I personally hope the OP & others like him get a gf who's really into pegging.

If so, they won't remain my gf for long if that is all they want.

Please find a new topic. This one is gay.

I've got no problem with gayness. But I'll show you the sort of gayness that really cracks me up, ho ho ho.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6476/deermw6.jpg

Deer oh deer....

And now that we're all here I think I'll throw this in for good measure, wheeeeeeeeeee!

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/7733/loveconquersallvi8.jpg

Actually that's not a bad idea. Call it marriage if you want, but legally it's all civil unions.

Other than that, another thing that I'm tired of is people comparing apples to oranges. Different skin colors marrying is nothing near homosexuals marrying.

Oh yes it it, Sel. It is the same damned thing. In each instance two consenting adults are prevented simply because of a physical attribute they have no control over. That is ridiculous.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13185704']
And now that we're all here I think I'll throw this in for good measure, wheeeeeeeeeee!

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/7733/loveconquersallvi8.jpg
The zebra doesn't even seem to notice. Does this mean that antelopes are 'tiny' or zebras 'sloppy?'
Erm, no. I didn't. But you were saying that gay pride events are in response to the "icky factor" that most people (including SA here) seem to flaunt, and I'm not so sure I like that on principle.

My point was that the idea of a "Het Pride" strikes me as irritating because it would support a sort of segregated identity of "heterosexuals". I certainly wouldn't want people today making a big deal of their own heterosexuality. It would (and does) come across as deliberately confrontational in a world where people are supposedly free to choose/adhere to (delete according to understanding of sexual preference theory) their own sexual preferences.

Surely promoting either of the two in isolation isn't the best way to pressure society into acknowledging its internal variation? I mean, look at what that kind of thinking has done to American Politics! It's all Conflict and no Resolution when each side is told to drift to their respective extremes.
Okay, now that I've unpacked this all, I refer you to this response-
The problem with heterosexual pride parades as that straight people already have them all the time - they just don't notice how up in your face heterosexual they are every single day. In this omnipresent noise of heterosexuality we're all surrounded by every day, they can only pick out the non-heterosexual. Also, the people who fail to see how heterosexuality permeates society like wet on a rag and thus go on about starting a "straight pride parade" never want to start it for other reasons than to be anti-gay, and show that they can't stand one day of the year when they're not in the centre.

Its to bad that we as a species have not yet learned to live and let live. When it comes to judging the human race God has said that he will do it and no one else should be involved. What this world needs more of is loving others as you do yourself. If you don't agree with something others are doing or not doing pray about it. Then trust the lord to make the changes that he sees fit.

Then trust the lord to make the changes that he sees fit.

There is no reason to trust the imaginary, and I'll make the changes I see fit. Nothing fails like prayer does, and two hands working will always accomplish more than a thousand clasped in futile prayer.

Why people can't shut up about Homosexuality? Because there are people out there who view homosexuality as something bad, wrong, incorrect and as something which should be banned.

Because being gay can get you killed, make you unworthy of your human rights (in the eyes of some people) and dehumanize you, and this and worse happens not only in the US!


My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.
This kinda says it all, doesn't it :p

There is no reason to trust the imaginary, and I'll make the changes I see fit. Nothing fails like prayer does, and two hands working will always accomplish more than a thousand clasped in futile prayer.

Obviously you have never experienced the power of the Holy Spirit my friend. If you had you would know beyond a doubt that their is nothing imaginary about prayer and trusting the good lord. Let me make you a suggestion, Benny Hin will be in Orlando the weekend of December 16th. Go check him out then tell me its futile. What could be better, you could really get to know the lord and have a bit of vacation in Orlando at the same time.

If someone farts on the bus do you think of sex? Does the thought of or smell of shit arouse you? I can never get a straight response when I ask this question.

If someone farts on the bus do you think of sex? Does the thought of or smell of shit arouse you? I can never get a straight response when I ask this question.

Imagine that :rolleyes:

Obviously you have never experienced the power of the Holy Spirit my friend.

Neither have you or anyone apart from in your imagination, so... yeah.

If you had you would know beyond a doubt that their is nothing imaginary about prayer and trusting the good lord.

Just like there's nothing imaginary about rubbing your juju-bag to convince the big spirit in the totem to make it rain, eh? Or offer petals to Vishnu so he can bring you prosperity?

Let me make you a suggestion, Benny Hin will be in Orlando the weekend of December 16th. Go check him out then tell me its futile. What could be better, you could really get to know the lord and have a bit of vacation in Orlando at the same time.

I have far, far more important things to do in December and so close to finals period than to fly to another continent and listen to some religious loon go on about his televangelist nonsense, but thanks for the suggestion.

If someone farts on the bus do you think of sex? Does the thought of or smell of shit arouse you? I can never get a straight response when I ask this question.

Maybe because that question presumes many things about homosexuality that just aren't true. You might want to consider that rather than presuming your question MUST be a reasonable question.

How schizophrenic. And no, I will not shut up. Your ilk will never be able to shut us up ever again. We will be in your bigoted little face until you die. And our cause will outlive you.

You have proven your self to be a bigot as well. Hypocracy really fits you. Also, for the record, no it won't out live us. Our beleafs have exsisted throughout most of history Its not going to just vanish. Especially with all the muslims religious rights you want to have(such as hanging gays).

Also, for the record, no it won't out live us. Our beleafs have exsisted throughout most of history Its not going to just vanish. Especially with all the muslims religious rights you want to have(such as hanging gays).

What are you on about? :confused:

You have proven your self to be a bigot as well. Hypocracy really fits you. Also, for the record, no it won't out live us. Our beleafs have exsisted throughout most of history Its not going to just vanish.

You really think Christianity is going to outlive homosexuality as a viable religion? Maybe you should try looking at history, friend, before making such ridiculous statements.

And yes, Fass is a bigot, but he's not typical of homosexuals nor should you judge them by him. If you want anyone to judge homosexuals by, look at Mirkai, or Skaladora.

Neither have you or anyone apart from in your imagination, so... yeah.



Just like there's nothing imaginary about rubbing your juju-bag to convince the big spirit in the totem to make it rain, eh? Or offer petals to Vishnu so he can bring you prosperity?



I have far, far more important things to do in December and so close to finals period than to fly to another continent and listen to some religious loon go on about his televangelist nonsense, but thanks for the suggestion.


I'm sorry you feel that way, scripture says that everyone will be given at least one chance to come to the lord. Hopefully for your sake he will see fit to offer you another chance.

I'm sorry you feel that way, scripture says that everyone will be given at least one chance to come to the lord. Hopefully for your sake he will see fit to offer you another chance.

I guess I'm screwed on that second chance thingy since your magical wizard in the sky or his cosmic Jew don't exist to grant even first ones. Shucks and drats and whatnots.

Actually that's not a bad idea. Call it marriage if you want, but legally it's all civil unions.

Other than that, another thing that I'm tired of is people comparing apples to oranges. Different skin colors marrying is nothing near homosexuals marrying.

For someone who doesn't want anyone to talk about the icky gays, you seem to be talking about them a lot. Have you ever considered that you might be gay and overcompensating?

You really think Christianity is going to outlive homosexuality as a viable religion? Maybe you should try looking at history, friend, before making such ridiculous statements.


While this post was not directed directly at me I feel the need to inform you that Christianty is the only viable religion. Why? Because Jesus is the only way to God. Also I wasn't aware that homosexuality was considered a religion anyway. I think I would have heard that before if it was true as I'm transgendered.

For someone who doesn't want anyone to talk about the icky gays, you seem to be talking about them a lot. Have you ever considered that you might be gay and overcompensating?

It sure is confusing given he otherwise embraces policies pointed more towards the left than the right.

You know, Sel, if you are confused about your sexuality, you should speak to a therapist.
While this post was not directed directly at me I feel the need to inform you that Christianty is the only viable religion. Why? Because Jesus is the only way to God. Also I wasn't aware that homosexuality was considered a religion anyway. I think I would have heard that before if it was true as I'm transgendered.
You're transgendered and yet you listen to Christianity? You're in self-denial, friend.

I am aware that my comments made it sound like I called homosexuality a religion. That was not my intention. I meant that Christianity is not going to somehow outlive homosexuality because Christianity is just another in a long line of stupid bullshit whereas homosexuality is a natural aspect of humanity.

While this post was not directed directly at me I feel the need to inform you that Christianty is the only viable religion. Why? Because Jesus is the only way to God.

"Why? Because the Bible says so! Why does it say that? Because Jesus says so! How do you know that? Because the Bible says he says so! Why does it say that? Because Jesus says so!" Right...

Chandler, Chandler, Chandler... the poll choice should be "Could this poll BE any more biased?" *hides*

But seriously, homosexuality is genetic -- they've recently demonstrated that in a type of worms, swapping a specific gene makes female worms lesbians.

While this post was not directed directly at me I feel the need to inform you that Christianty is the only viable religion. Why? Because Jesus is the only way to God. Also I wasn't aware that homosexuality was considered a religion anyway. I think I would have heard that before if it was true as I'm transgendered.
Topic Shift Time, methinks.

I guess I'm screwed on that second chance thingy since your magical wizard in the sky or his cosmic Jew don't exist to grant even first ones. Shucks and drats and whatnots.


Well it will really suck to be you when you find out just how wrong you are when you meet the supposedly nonexistant god and his son after your death. Maybe you should reconsider your position, shucks what if I am wrong, drats I won't be going to heaven, what do I do now? :headbang:

On the subject of zebra and not noticing; I have met a number of people who would not notice. Sadly these "people", and I use the term loosely, claim to be heterosexual.

Well it will really suck to be you when you find out just how wrong you are when you meet the supposedly nonexistant god and his son after your death.
Shucks what if you are wrong, drats you will not be going to heaven, whatnot now?

It'll suck just as equally to be you when you don't get to partake of the Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory.

Also, my Pascal's Wager sense is tingling. I wouldn't go there if I was you.

Well it will really suck to be you when you find out just how wrong you are when you meet the supposedly nonexistant god and his son after your death. Maybe you should reconsider your position, shucks what if I am wrong, drats I won't be going to heaven, what do I do now? :headbang:
*Clears throat, pointing to the post above yours*

"Why? Because the Bible says so! Why does it say that? Because Jesus says so! How do you know that? Because the Bible says he says so! Why does it say that? Because Jesus says so!" Right...

If you wish to read it for yourself I will buy you a bible.

Bringing god into a political debate means you have a small penis. This goes for both sexes.

It'll suck just as equally to be you when you don't get to partake of the Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory.

Also, my Pascal's Wager sense is tingling. I wouldn't go there if I was you.

Not really I hate beer, especially when its warm. I've already been offered a job as a stripper years ago and turned it down. So I don't have a need to go there.:p

Not really I hate beer, especially when its warm. I've already been offered a job as a stripper years ago and turned it down. So I don't have a need to go there.:p

Well, enjoy your eternity in Pastafarian Hell, where the beer is stale and the strippers have VD.

Topic Shift Time, methinks.

Methinks I will if they will ...

Fucking unclench. You don't like homosexuality? Don't date a dude. Otherwise fuck off. As long as their are people that tell them they should 'be quiet' about it and 'hide it' then they have reasons for parades and to tell you, "Fuck off, I don't have any reason to be ashamed."[/QUOTE]

Stop friggin' cursing on the net. It ain't right. There's nothing wrong with being heterosexual. Its just a mind set, a way of thought. In a way, its like a religion. Both are ways of thinking and interperating the world around us, right? If its illegal to make laws concerning religion, shouldn't the same be true about gayness?

Well, enjoy your eternity in Pastafarian Hell, where the beer is stale and the strippers have VD.


I won't be going to Pastafarian Hell or any other thank you very much, can you say that? Why .... because I know that Lord Jesus Christ .... do you?
I hope you will if you don't.

Well it will really suck to be you when you find out just how wrong you are when you meet the supposedly nonexistant god and his son after your death. Maybe you should reconsider your position, shucks what if I am wrong, drats I won't be going to heaven, what do I do now? :headbang:

Pascal's wager BS - have fun when Allah or Tiamat or Odin or any other deity someone made up like yours own your ass because you worshipped the wrong deity. I will on the other hand spend my life not believing in fairy tales and some cosmic Zombie Jew on a stick whom you telepathically have to say is your hero because some rib woman was talked into eating an apple from a magical tree by a talking snake.

If you wish to read it for yourself I will buy you a bible.

http://www.bibeln.se

Save your money.

Methinks I will stop ... if they will ...

The problem is I don't think they will.

Pascal's wager BS - have fun when Allah or Tiamat or Odin or any other deity someone made up like yours own your ass because you worshipped the wrong deity. I will on the other hand spend my life not believing in fairy tales. Save your money and buy yourself a clue.

If you don't believe in fairy tales why bring up Allah or Tiamat or Odin?

Well it will really suck to be you when you find out just how wrong you are when you meet the supposedly nonexistant god and his son after your death. Maybe you should reconsider your position, shucks what if I am wrong, drats I won't be going to heaven, what do I do now? :headbang:

I won't bang my head against a brick wall, that's for certain.

In any case, I'm not wrong.

And if I were, I doubt this God of yours would condemn me to the fiery pits of hell for all eternity simply for not believing in him. (Some Christians seem to think we atheists choose to "reject" God. That's not to way it works. The concept of a deity simply offends our rational mind. We cannot believe in a god. Any more than you could force yourself to worship Zeus and Apollo.)

And if he does turn out to be a first-class tyrannical bastard... Well, I'll just have to spend eternity basking in the supremely gratifying knowledge that I'm a better person than God. Not a bad thought to mull on for the rest of time.

If you don't believe in fairy tales why bring up Allah or Tiamat or Odin?

Because those imaginary magical creatures are as silly as yours and at least as likely to exist. They don't exist of course, just like yours doesn't, but somehow you think I should fear your vengeful, spiteful and jealous deity over them. No, thank you. I always preferred Hans Christian Andersen.

I won't bang my head against a brick wall, that's for certain.

In any case, I'm not wrong.

And if I were, I doubt this God of yours would condemn me to the fiery pits of hell for all eternity simply for not believing in him. (Some Christians seem to think we atheists choose to "reject" God. That's not to way it works. The concept of a deity simply offends our rational mind. We cannot believe in a god. Any more than you could force yourself to worship Zeus and Apollo.)

And if he does turn out to be a first-class tyrannical bastard... Well, I'll just have to spend eternity basking in the supremely gratifying knowledge that I'm a better person than God. Not a bad thought to mull on for the rest of time.

I really am sorry you feel that way, but remember you made the choice.

I won't be going to Pastafarian Hell or any other thank you very much,
Given that you aren't vert pirate-y at all, I'd say it's a distinct possibility.
can you say that?
Of course. I've been touched by His Noodly Appendage. :)
Why .... because I know that Lord Jesus Christ .... do you?
I hope you will if you don't.
I know of this character. He wasn't a pirate.
If you don't believe in fairy tales why bring up Allah or Tiamat or Odin?

What's that wooshing noise? I think it's the point, flying over your head.

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. I'm sick and tired of both sideso f the fence acting like jerks. "DEATH TO FAGS!" vs. "WEEEEE PRETTY COLORS!" The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.
Well I wouldn't say people should "shut up" about it, but yeah it's nowhere NEAR as much of an issue as either supposed "side" makes it out to be. It's ridiculous. Personally I disagree with you on the idea that it's "wrong" as I don't see what's so "wrong" about it, but what's more important is how I agree that people really need to stop making such a big deal about this...

I really am sorry you feel that way, but remember you made the choice.

What "choice" exactly did I make?

Because those imaginary magical creatures are as silly as yours and at least as likely to exist. They don't exist of course, just like yours doesn't, but somehow you think I should fear your vengeful, spiteful and jealous deity over them. No, thank you. I always preferred Hans Christian Andersen.

God is not a magical creature, but he is very real! Likewise there isn't anything silly about loving people enough to send his only begotten son to save them. What is silly is that some of those people refuse that he exist.

Tell you what lets agree to disagree and end this arguement right now .... what do you say?

...imaginary magical creatures

God is not a magical creature...
You boys tired of running in circles yet?

It’s obvious neither of you will prove to the other the truth of your respective claims. Shouting over the internet about it won’t help.

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned

Well, wrong is all a point-of-view. Morals aren't for the government to decide, they're personal preference.

The controversy is over gay-marriage, something that hasn't been proposed for thousands of years. Whether. or not gay marriage is a good idea, I can't say. Unlike other people I'm not certain of anything. It's been tried in other countries, and seems to be working. But then again I doubt gun-control would work in the U.S., and it works excellent in other nations.

This is more an issue of separation of church-and-states if you ask me.

God is not a magical creature, but he is very real!

Says your story book. Other people have other story books. As I said, I have The Little Mermaid. That Triton fellow, now there's a deity!

Likewise there isn't anything silly about loving people enough to send his only begotten son to save them. What is silly is that some of those people refuse that he exist.

http://www.voenixrising.com/images/christianity.jpg

Yeah, how silly not to believe that!

Tell you what lets agree to disagree and end this arguement right now .... what do you say?

I say you lose. :)

Tell you what lets agree to disagree and end this arguement right now .... what do you say?

You chummed the waters and now want to play nice with the sharks? Good luck with that.

http://home.blarg.net/~wayule/graphics/bk000.jpg

I won't be going to Pastafarian Hell

Of course you won't. According to the first 'I'd really rather you didn't', "If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain." You don't have to believe in the FSM to go to heaven :)

Well, wrong is all a point-of-view. Morals aren't for the government to decide, they're personal preference.

The controversy is over gay-marriage, something that hasn't been proposed for thousands of years. Whether. or not gay marriage is a good idea, I can't say. Unlike other people I'm not certain of anything. It's been tried in other countries, and seems to be working. But then again I doubt gun-control would work in the U.S., and it works excellent in other nations.

This is more an issue of separation of church-and-states if you ask me.

Sepation of church and state was enacted in order to stop the federal goernment from supporting one religion and forcing everyone to attend that one church, not to keep religion out of government.

What "choice" exactly did I make?

You know, the one all of us atheists made when we rejected God. We're supposed to burn in Hell, remember?

Hey, Kormanthor! I hope you fade into oblivion when you die!

See, I can be rude too.

Of course you won't. According to the first 'I'd really rather you didn't', "If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain." You don't have to believe in the FSM to go to heaven :)

It's really hard to get converts when we can't threaten them with eternal damnation to stale beer and VD ridden strippers.

Sepation of church and state was enacted in order to stop the federal goernment from supporting one religion and forcing everyone to attend that one church, not to keep religion out of government.
So separation of church and state isn’t about separating the church and state?

It all becomes so clear...

You chummed the waters and now want to play nice with the sharks? Good luck with that.

They chummed the waters before I ever got here friend. Thats why I felt I needed to defend my beliefs. Besides you can successfully swim with sharks without harm providing you have the right protective equipment.

Well I wouldn't say people should "shut up" about it, but yeah it's nowhere NEAR as much of an issue as either supposed "side" makes it out to be. It's ridiculous. Personally I disagree with you on the idea that it's "wrong" as I don't see what's so "wrong" about it, but what's more important is how I agree that people really need to stop making such a big deal about this...

Wrong is my opinion, but I really don't care what you do as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it or whatever.

So separation of church and state isn’t about separating the church and state?

It all becomes so clear...

Clear like a blindfold.

Wrong is my opinion, but I really don't care what you do as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it or whatever.

Then you should find a nice cave somewhere miles away from civilisation.

So separation of church and state isn’t about separating the church and state?

It all becomes so clear...


Look it up

Wrong is my opinion, but I really don't care what you do as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it or whatever.

And why should homosexuals refrain from behaving in the same way as heterosexuals?

Wrong is my opinion, but I really don't care what you do as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it or whatever.

What do you define as seeing or hearing about it? Unless you're talking about people disturbing you while you're somewhere private and showing off their homosexuality, they can do whatever they want in public. What is wrong with being able to have the exact same freedom that we heterosexuals do? What is wrong with a man kissing his boyfriend as he steps off the bus, or a woman holding her girlfriend's hand as they walk through the city?

What is wrong with homosexuals being allowed to be HUMAN?!

Look up what?

A dictionary entry for the word ‘separation’?

If you’re trying to suggest that the USA was somehow inaugurated as a Christian nation, then I suggest you ‘look it up’.

In before treaty of tripoli. And your post.


Lets do the time warp agaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain

You know, the one all of us atheists made when we rejected God. We're supposed to burn in Hell, remember?

Hey, Kormanthor! I hope you fade into oblivion when you die!

See, I can be rude too.


I didn't make the rule Kyronea, I'm just the messager. Also I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just defending my beliefs.

Look it up
Look up what?

A dictionary entry for the word ‘separation’?

If you’re trying to suggest that the USA was somehow inaugurated as a Christian nation, then I suggest you ‘look it up’.

I didn't make the rule Kyronea, I'm just the messager. Also I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just defending my beliefs.

And I am defending mine. What is your point?

Look up what?

A dictionary entry for the word ‘separation’?

If you’re trying to suggest that the USA was somehow inaugurated as a Christian nation, then I suggest you ‘look it up’.

The USA was founded so you could believe in whatever religion you wished too. That is the whole point CW, separation of church and state was made so you have the right to worship in any way you choose instead of how a government might decide you should. But it doesn't mean that religion, or people who are religious should not be allowed to work in the government or express there religious views if they wish too.

I'm just defending my beliefs.

No, you're very much failing to defend your beliefs.

Also another interesting thing, Sel Appa, is about ideology labels (ok I know this is off-topic but I wanna get this point across at this opportunity) is how you're in favour of animal rights (considered a "left-wing" opinion) and consider homosexuality wrong (considered a "right-wing" opinion) while I'm against animal rights (considered a "right-wing" opinion) and don't consider homosexuality wrong (considered a "left-wing" opinion); the political spectrum would imply that we have more common ground than either of us would have with someone who has opinions considered "left-wing" on both issues or "right-wing" on both issues.

as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it or whatever.

Tough. It's not going to happen.

The USA was founded so you could believe in whatever religion you wished too. That is the whole point CW, separation of church and state was made so you have the right to worship in any way you choose instead of how a government might decide you should. But it doesn't mean that religion, or people who are religious should not be allowed to work in the government or express there religious views if they wish too.

Of course we shouldn't prohibit people who are religious from working in the government or expressing their PERSONAL views.

HOWEVER

The government ITSELF should NOT express or favor ANY RELIGION PERIOD.

But it doesn’t mean that religion, or people who are religious should not be allowed to work in the government or express there religious views if they wish too.
I agree, but if they express their religious views as views of the government, or if the government endorses the church as a state religion, or if it legislates on religious matters, then it’s hardly a separation of church and state.

It seemed you were implying this above.

And I am defending mine. What is your point?

Fine we have both defended our individual beliefs, now can we just agree to disagree and forget it?

Sepation of church and state was enacted in order to stop the federal goernment from supporting one religion and forcing everyone to attend that one church, not to keep religion out of government.

Well, I don't personally think any religion should play a part in the government. I don't even think the belief in God should. I personally believe God exists, but even so we know little about him (supposing you agree that he even exists in the first place). To make laws based-off what he supposedly believes is right is rediculous. If he's omnipotent, he doesn't need us to carry out his wishes.

"Why does God need a starship?"

Well it will really suck to be you when you find out just how wrong you are ...
In any case, I'm not wrong.
Everyone's wrong (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542333). The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can get on with life.

Separate but equal? Oh yeah, that worked out brilliantly the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) around.
What the hell? Are you comparing this to racism? How the hell is how they can't marry NEAR as bad as racism?

What the hell? Are you comparing this to racism? How the hell is how they can't marry NEAR as bad as racism?

How is discriminating against people based on who they like to fuck really any different than discriminating against people based on hte concentration of melanin in their skin?

Hey, Kormanthor! I hope you fade into oblivion when you die!


Oblivion is like heaven. Peaceful and warm.

What the hell? Are you comparing this to racism? How the hell is how they can't marry NEAR as bad as racism?
It's preventing people from exercising a BASIC RIGHT because of a PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.

Therefore it is EXACTLY the same.
Oblivion is like heaven. Peaceful and warm.
Nyet. You have no awareness. You cease to be. I have no intention of ever dying if I can avoid it through technology.

What the hell? Are you comparing this to racism? How the hell is how they can't marry NEAR as bad as racism?

Well, conceivably a law that forbids blacks from marrying whites (existed) is racist. *runs away*

And for fuck's sake, how about EVERYONE cuts down on the public displays of affection?
How about people just looking away? I think it's easier to look away than to hide one's emotions but whatever.

Well, I don't personally think any religion should play a part in the government. I don't even think the belief in God should. I personally believe God exists, but even so we know little about him (supposing you agree that he even exists in the first place). To make laws based-off what he supposedly believes is right is rediculous. If he's omnipotent, he doesn't need us to carry out his wishes.

"Why does God need a starship?" He doesn't... :p


Looking at how the government has been ran in the last few years I don't think you have to worry about religion having been the cause of our national woes. I think a very sneaky individual tricked many religious folks into believing he was something he really isn't in order to get elected. Then proceeded to do whatever he wished. Personally I don't believe that anyone that ran at least two companies into the ground financially before running for office should have ever been granted the office of the president. But thats exactly what happened and now our economy is in a similiar condition as those two companies and for the same reason, to make that individual and his friends richer. Imagine That .... who would have thought? Unforunately no one did. :headbang:

Nyet. You have no awareness. You cease to be. I have no intention of ever dying if I can avoid it through technology.

One day it will come and invite you over for tea. You won't be able to refuse it, I assure you; the Grim Reaper is a real charmer. Death is lazy place. No worries, and no Republicans. :D Well, I suppose they die too....

How about people just looking away? I think it's easier to look away than to hide one's emotions but whatever.
It's the principle of the imposer being responsible for curtailing their actions to suit the context. It's perfectly fine for you to express emotion, but if the expression of this emotion would be to drop your trousers and frantically procreate then I think we'd be justified in asking you to get out of the queue to the checkout desk first.

Of course, to get this right, we need dialogue. Which is kinda missing, generally.

One day it will come and invite you over for tea. You won't be able to refuse it, I assure you; the Grim Reaper is a real charmer. Death is lazy place. No worries, and no Republicans. :D Well, I suppose they die too....

The problem is that--as far as we currently understand it--death is irreversible. I don't like irreversible things, especially ones that end up with me no longer existing.

How is discriminating against people based on who they like to fuck really any different than discriminating against people based on hte concentration of melanin in their skin?
I agree that both are too trivial to base discrimination on, but how in the world is not being allowed to marry who they want somehow just as bad as having what schools they can go to be restricted?

It's the principle of the imposer being responsible for curtailing their actions to suit the context. It's perfectly fine for you to express emotion, but if the expression of this emotion would be to drop your trousers and frantically procreate then I think we'd be justified in asking you to get out of the queue to the checkout desk first.

Of course, to get this right, we need dialogue. Which is kinda missing, generally.
Well, yes, but I'm pretty sure most public displays of affection involve, what, a brief kiss or a hug? Come on. How many people do you really see fornicating in the streets?

I agree that both are too trivial to base discrimination on, but how in the world is not being allowed to marry who they want somehow just as bad as having what schools they can go to be restricted?
I say once again: denial of basic RIGHTS.

Besides, marriage is important for many reasons. Check out the list of interesting things you get when you are married, like visitation rights, for example.

Well, conceivably a law that forbids blacks from marrying whites (existed) is racist. *runs away*
Yeah but racism isn't JUST about who people can marry, it's about all kinds of discrimination.

Yeah but racism isn't JUST about who people can marry, it's about all kinds of discrimination.

Well, someone could say that gays can't use straight water faucets because there is a greater chance that they have engaged in oral-eroticism, and the object of their engagements has been ensconced in unsanitary cavities.

Of course, we're obviously talking gay men here.

How about people just looking away? I think it's easier to look away than to hide one's emotions but whatever.

By the time I notice it enough to look away I'm already sick to my stomach. :(
Seeing people kissing makes me feel sick but I wouldn't try to stop anyone from doing that just because it makes me feel ill... except at school, because then it's against the rules and they can get a detention for it (if it's happened more than once).

One day it will come and invite you over for tea.
More like "one day it will come and sentence you to absolute complete nothingness and blankness forever... unless we can use technology to keep it away" but whatever.

By the time I notice it enough to look away I'm already sick to my stomach. :(
Seeing people kissing makes me feel sick but I wouldn't try to stop anyone from doing that just because it makes me feel ill... except at school, because then it's against the rules and they can get a detention for it (if it's happened more than once).
Really? You feel ill before you can even look away? You should probably talk to a doctor about that one. o.o

Really? You feel ill before you can even look away? You should probably talk to a doctor about that one. o.o

I used to get sick just by being around more than a few people, so it's been getting a lot better...

The problem is that--as far as we currently understand it--death is irreversible. I don't like irreversible things, especially ones that end up with me no longer existing.

Better get used to it. I look at life as but the road to death.

For some reason to consider it like dentist's waiting room, or something.

After-all, what is awareness? If you never had a soul to begin with, what are you losing? Death may make you more aware for all you know.

Well, someone could say that gays can't use straight water faucets because there is a greater chance that they have engaged in oral-eroticism, and the object of their engagements has been ensconced in unsanitary cavities.
Hmm? I don't think public water faucets would spread anything unsanitary, since it's not like the water that comes into contact with the mouths using it goes back into where the water is sprayed up from. And if they do, then oral sex isn't the only concern since there's LOTS of diseases that can be spread through saliva.

More like "one day it will come and sentence you to absolute complete nothingness and blankness forever... unless we can use technology to keep it away" but whatever.

"Always look on the bright side of life" *whistling*

Why do you assume death is nothingness? And even if it is, what's so bad about nothingness?

Well, yes, but I'm pretty sure most public displays of affection involve, what, a brief kiss or a hug? Come on. How many people do you really see fornicating in the streets?

I've seen two this week. Well it wasn't really in the streets. It was more like an alley. Under a railway track. And the people involved were a couple of teens doped up on hormones but it counts! Anyway, what was my point? I've not been reading the thread..

I say once again: denial of basic RIGHTS.

Besides, marriage is important for many reasons. Check out the list of interesting things you get when you are married, like visitation rights, for example.
Where's the list?

Better get used to it. I look at life as but the road to death.

For some reason to consider it like dentist's waiting room, or something.

After-all, what is awareness? If you never had a soul to begin with, what are you losing? Death may make you more aware for all you know.

If I have no soul, the only thing currently producing my consciousness is my human body. With it being dead, I completely cease to exist, hence my desire for technological advancement to keep me alive.

Hayeria: ...err...to be honest I actually have no idea. But I imagine you'd find it on some sort of U.S. legal site.

Hmm? I don't think public water faucets would spread anything unsanitary, since it's not like the water that comes into contact with the mouths using it goes back into where the water is sprayed up from. And if they do, then oral sex isn't the only concern since there's LOTS of diseases that can be spread through saliva.

Like I said: the object which holds their palettes' attention could very well have been in contact with undisirable recesses.

Trilby63;13186130']I've seen two this week. Well it wasn't really in the streets. It was more like an alley. Under a railway track. And the people involved were a couple of teens doped up on hormones but it counts! Anyway, what was my point? I've not been reading the thread..

That's it! In the corner! Now!

Why do you assume death is nothingness?
When our bodies lose function, so do our brains which are in turn the root of our consciousness, if we lose the ability to sense things we have no reason to believe that would result in anything but nothingness.

And even if it is, what's so bad about nothingness?
What the hell? What's so bad about having absolute blankness forever?

When our bodies lose function, so do our brains which are in turn the root of our consciousness, if we lose the ability to sense things we have no reason to believe that would result in anything but nothingness.


What the hell? What's so bad about having absolute blankness forever?

There would be nothing bad about it. There'd simply be nothing.

What the hell? What's so bad about having absolute blankness forever?

Yeah, unless you really hate the colour. It perfect: no senses, no objects, no cravings, no depressions, just contentedness. Perfectly smooth and unified. Death is a beautiful thing really. The guy with scythe just appears frightening. I'm sure he's quite nice really.

It's preventing people from exercising a BASIC RIGHT because of a PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.

Therefore it is EXACTLY the same.
No it's not. It's bad, but it's trivial compared to racism depriving people of several rights, some of which are arguably more important than marriage.

Getting drunk is lowering you awareness, and people enjoy that. Losing it entirely can't be that bad.

Inhibitions =/= awareness

If I have no soul, the only thing currently producing my consciousness is my human body. With it being dead, I completely cease to exist, hence my desire for technological advancement to keep me alive.


Getting drunk is lowering you awareness, and people enjoy that. Losing it entirely can't be that bad.

Inhibitions =/= awareness

So you''re basically saying people drink to numb their common sense, not to mention their conscience? It lowers inhibitions, but I don't think that's why people drink it.

Getting drunk is lowering you awareness, and people enjoy that. Losing it entirely can't be that bad.

I don't. I hate having my mental faculties inhibited.

Yeah, unless you really hate the colour. It perfect: no senses, no objects, no cravings, no depressions, just contentedness. Perfectly smooth and unified. Death is a beautiful thing really. The guy with scythe just appears frightening. I'm sure he's quite nice really.
I wouldn't trust him, neither of us can know where he wants to take us.

Look, it's nice to have optimistic views about death, but I think it's better to have optimistic views about technology so we can focus our efforts on developing it to fight death, hopefully to be victorious over it. I'm so sick of people talking about death as being "natural"; so are cannibalism and rape, but we know those are very wrong. Nature is all about survival of the fittest, so using appeals to nature to defend death is thoroughly retarded... unless the means of death you would want is being eaten alive by some wild animal you'd be a hypocrite to trust death.

Getting drunk is lowering you awareness, and people enjoy that. Losing it entirely can't be that bad.
I avoid alcohol, personally.

I wouldn't trust him, neither of us can know where he wants to take us.

Just because he's always grinning doesn't mean he's a sociopath, or a Bush.

Look, it's nice to have optimistic views about death, but I think it's better to have optimistic views about technology so we can focus our efforts on developing it to fight death, hopefully to be victorious over it.

People are already starving as it is. Do you realize how difficult it would be to maintain our resources if death were "cured"?


I'm so sick of people talking about death as being "natural"; so are cannibalism and rape, but we know those are very wrong.

Morally wrong. What's morally wrong about dying?

Nature is all about survival of the fittest, so using appeals to nature to defend death is thoroughly retarded... unless the means of death you would want is being eaten alive by some wild animal you'd be a hypocrite to trust death.

Dying in, and of itself, would not bother me in the slightest. I'm not suicidal, I won't press death's hospitality, but I won't scream and be rude to it either.

I avoid alcohol, personally.

I don't drink period. Though I do enjoy an occasional non-alcoholic beer. With drinking you might harm others. Not so with death.

So you''re basically saying people drink to numb their common sense, not to mention their conscience?
That's why people get drunk, generally.
It lowers inhibitions, but I don't think that's why people drink it.

That and the taste.

I don't drink period. Though I do enjoy an occasional non-alcoholic beer. With drinking you might harm others. Not so with death.
That's exactly what I meant.

That's exactly what I meant.

Ah-hm. Well, like I said I couldn't do any damage while I'm dead....could I?

"Yep, we just pulled over another one of these dead drivers. Don't people know how dangerous it is to drive a car while you're dead?"

That's why people get drunk, generally.


That and the taste.

Don't people drink because it feels good? No worries and all that?

Don't people drink because it feels good? No worries and all that?

There are as many reasons to drink as there are people who drink, I assume

That's it! In the corner! Now!

The "corner", eh? Is that what you kids call it these days? Nice...;)

There are as many reasons to drink as there are people who drink, I assume

I guess the same thing goes for death.

Trilby63;13186233']The "corner", eh? Is that what you kids call it these days? Nice...;)

Uh, no, I mean in the corner. As in actually a corner. Facing the corner. You're standing there for twenty minutes!

People are already starving as it is. Do you realize how difficult it would be to maintain our resources if death were "cured"?
I'm not talking about living in our natural bodies forever, I'm talking about an artificial afterlife like as in something like human brain translation for consciousness transfer to a computer, such that you can still communicate with future generations. It shouldn't be impossible to eventually get there given advances in neuroscience. And we don't have to get there within my lifetime, we only have to have cryonics within my lifetime (and when I was talking to a biochem faculty member about at MUN orientation, he said cryonics within my lifetime was quite feasible) so I can freeze myself to say not to be revived until they've gotten there. This is why I'm looking at going into cryonics research.

Besides, with regards to overpopulation, reproduction is AT LEAST at just as much fault.

Morally wrong. What's morally wrong about dying?
What nature has done to everyone who has died so far, and is planning on doing to everyone who hasn't.

Dying in, and of itself, would not bother me in the slightest.
Well, that's you. Ok, fair enough, to each their own, I'm just defending the idea of using technology to help us avoid death...

I'm not suicidal, I won't press death's hospitality, but I won't scream and be rude to it either.
What's that supposed to mean?

I think rudeness is quite justified to the one who's trying to get us put into eternal absolute blankness; not to mention how it doesn't really have feelings in itself anyway and we're only personifying for the sake of description...

Don't people drink because it feels good? No worries and all that?

Yup. Drinking makes you feel awesome- until you have one drink too many. Just know your limits.

While I'm not sure the 'ooh, pretty' wing of the gay rights campaign helps... hah, he says, watching fireworks... I agree with their purpose.

That's the on-topic comment.

On the offshoot topics: I also avoid alcohol; and death terrifies me and yet I've been intermittently suicidal, which then terrifies me, which is probably why I'm here typing this.

I'm not talking about living in our natural bodies forever, I'm talking about an artificial afterlife like as in something like human brain translation for consciousness transfer to a computer, such that you can still communicate with future generations. It shouldn't be impossible to eventually get there given advances in neuroscience. And we don't have to get there within my lifetime, we only have to have cryonics within my lifetime (and when I was talking to a biochem faculty member about at MUN orientation, he said cryonics within my lifetime was quite feasible) so I can freeze myself to say not to be revived until they've gotten there. This is why I'm looking at going into cryonics research.

Besides, with regards to overpopulation, reproduction is AT LEAST at just as much fault.


What nature has done to everyone who has died so far, and is planning on doing to everyone who hasn't.


Well, that's you. Ok, fair enough, to each their own, I'm just defending the idea of using technology to help us avoid death...


What's that supposed to mean?

I think rudeness is quite justified to the one who's trying to get us put into eternal absolute blankness; not to mention how it doesn't really have feelings in itself anyway and we're only personifying for the sake of description...

Dying is natural. Death makes life that much more special. Besides, it isn't blankness after you die. There is an afterlife.

Becoming immortal would be...wrong and unnatural. Nothing lasts forever. Everything ends. Prolonging life through good dieting, and an active lifestyle is alright though.

Dying is natural.

What is natural but that which happens? What makes human activities any less natural?
Death makes life that much more special.
I don't see how.
Besides, it isn't blankness after you die. There is an afterlife.

Proof?

Becoming immortal would be...wrong and unnatural. Nothing lasts forever. Everything ends. Prolonging life through good dieting, and an active lifestyle is alright though.
Personal opinion.

I'm not talking about living in our natural bodies forever, I'm talking about an artificial afterlife like as in something like human brain translation for consciousness transfer to a computer, such that you can still communicate with future generations. It shouldn't be impossible to eventually get there given advances in neuroscience. And we don't have to get there within my lifetime, we only have to have cryonics within my lifetime (and when I was talking to a biochem faculty member about at MUN orientation, he said cryonics within my lifetime was quite feasible) so I can freeze myself to say not to be revived until they've gotten there. This is why I'm looking at going into cryonics research.

Good luck with that. I don't care to live forever, but I wouldn't mind visiting life 1000 years from now to see our advances.

Besides, with regards to overpopulation, reproduction is AT LEAST at just as much fault.


So force people to employ birth control more? For that you'll need more then luck.

What nature has done to everyone who has died so far, and is planning on doing to everyone who hasn't.

Nature stops affecting you after you're dead. It kills you, but does not do anything more.

Well, that's you. Ok, fair enough, to each their own, I'm just defending the idea of using technology to help us avoid death...

I see. You view death a a disease. You might want to see The Fountain sometime, if you don't mid extremely abstract movies.

What's that supposed to mean?

I think rudeness is quite justified to the one who's trying to get us put into eternal absolute blankness; not to mention how it doesn't really have feelings in itself anyway and we're only personifying for the sake of description...

Death is probably thinking in our best interests. Kids hate bedtime, but need it.

Uh, no, I mean in the corner. As in actually a corner. Facing the corner. You're standing there for twenty minutes!

Oh..

What would you like me to do in this corner?

Trilby63;13186336']Oh..

What would you like me to do in this corner?

Stand there staring at the corner itself. Don't move. Don't talk. Just stand there. It's a punishment.

I have a GREAT idea. During India's declaration of independence from Britain the Muslims and Hindus couldn't live in harmony no matter how much people tried so they partitioned, and the Muslims formed a new nation "Pakistan". When people can't stand each other without constantly fighting they should separate. I propose that homosexuals go to some piece of land that has a very gay population and form a new sovereign nation separate from the others so the straight people can enjoy having boys bonk girls and visa versa while the gays can live happily away from the straights and get all the rights they want without straights butting in. This new nations can be called Flamistan.

Dying is natural.
Circular reasoning much? See my analogies about what else is. EDIT: And what Kyronea said too, what is natural but which happens and what makes human activities less natural?

Besides, it isn't blankness after you die. There is an afterlife.
Any basis for this statement?

Becoming immortal would be...wrong and unnatural.
I find it ridiculous that you associate those two things with each other.

I have a GREAT idea. During India's declaration of independence from Britain the Muslims and Hindus couldn't live in harmony no matter how much people tried so they partitioned, and the Muslims formed a new nation "Pakistan". When people can't stand each other without constantly fighting they should separate. I propose that homosexuals go to some piece of land that has a very gay population and form a new sovereign nation separate from the others so the straight people can enjoy having boys bonk girls and visa versa while the gays can live happily away from the straights and get all the rights they want without straights butting in. This new nations can be called Flamistan.
Hmm... *thinks back to Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbours public lecture at MUN a few weeks ago* Well, I don't think it's something worth breaking up countries over, but yeah, maybe something along those lines within countries like maybe in the US one of the states can be considered to be an ideal place for homosexuals so as to keep away those who don't like homosexuality.

Circular reasoning much? See my analogies about what else is. EDIT: And what Kyronea said too, what is natural but which happens and what makes human activities less natural?


Any basis for this statement?


I find it ridiculous that you associate those two things with each other.

Well in nature you don't see anything living forever. Therefore creating a means of living forever would be unnatural.

I believe there is an afterlife. That's enough for me.

eh? (to the last part)

Well in nature you don't see anything living forever. Therefore creating a means of living forever would be unnatural.

I ask again: What makes human behavior unnatural? What makes human creations unnatural? Why are we suddenly unnatural despite being in this universe? By being present, we are obviously natural.

I believe there is an afterlife. That's enough for me.

Would you impose this belief on others? Would you prevent them from doing certain things because of your own personal beliefs?

I used to get sick just by being around more than a few people, so it's been getting a lot better...
But have you been talking to a doctor about it though? Because if that alone can trigger feeling ill, then I doubt the public displays of affection themselves are doing that. I rarely if ever feel sick from them...

Wrong is my opinion, but I really don't care what you do as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it or whatever.
Good. You have no moral values and make no judgements. Ignorance is bliss, I see.
And why should homosexuals refrain from behaving in the same way as heterosexuals?
"Because it's icky!":rolleyes:
How is discriminating against people based on who they like to fuck really any different than discriminating against people based on hte concentration of melanin in their skin?
Indeed.
Yeah but racism isn't JUST about who people can marry, it's about all kinds of discrimination.
And so is this discrimination against homosexuals. I mean, it's also about stuff like denying people careers on the basis of sexuality (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html)
The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Just because the denial of basic rights are less than what black people experienced in the past, it's still a denial of rights - and perfectly comparable to racism.

In fact, that's why discrimination based upon sexuality falls under the wider definition of "racism".

Stand there staring at the corner itself. Don't move. Don't talk. Just stand there. It's a punishment.

Okay, but this isn't really doing anything for me..

But have you been talking to a doctor about it though? Because if that alone can trigger feeling ill, then I doubt the public displays of affection themselves are doing that. I rarely if ever feel sick from them...
She's asexual.
Trilby63;13186448']Okay, but this isn't really doing anything for me..
It's not supposed to.

Well in nature you don't see anything living forever. Therefore creating a means of living forever would be unnatural.

I believe there is an afterlife. That's enough for me.

eh? (to the last part)
In nature you don't see monkeys having the same standards on the ages of those involved in sexual activity humans do. Therefore our standards on the ages of those involved in sexual activity are unnatural.

See where I'm coming from here?

And belief in an afterlife being enough for you is one thing, to say it's wrong for me to pursue an artificial one on the basis of it "not being natural" is another.

I ask again: What makes human behavior unnatural? What makes human creations unnatural? Why are we suddenly unnatural despite being in this universe? By being present, we are obviously natural.

Would you impose this belief on others? Would you prevent them from doing certain things because of your own personal beliefs?

Human creations are unnatural because man created them, not nature. Any way of achieving immortality through technology would be artificial.

Would I prevent people from doing things? I would prevent them from raping, stealing, and murdering, yes.

As to the OP, I really don't care if people are gay or not. I don't think the government should have a hand in marriage at all.

Where's the list?

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law alone. (here (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf) (pdf) is the Government Accounting Office study to that effect and here (http://www.hrc.org/issues/5585.htm) is a summary).

Note this is merely federal law. There are many more benefits, rights, and protections afforded under state laws.

In nature you don't see sharks getting punished for eating their own young. Therefore creating a means of punishing cannibalism would be unnatural.

See where I'm coming from here?

And belief in an afterlife being enough for you is one thing, to say it's wrong for me to pursue an artificial one on the basis of it "not being natural" is another.

Cannibalism was only used under very certain circumstances in the past, or by mentally disturbed people.

I don't think I need to stop you from creating an artificial afterlife by living forever because I don't think technology will get there in time. If, however it does, then who knows.

Human creations are unnatural because man created them, not nature. Any way of achieving immortality through technology would be artificial.

Would I prevent people from doing things? I would prevent them from raping, stealing, and murdering, yes.

As to the OP, I really don't care if people are gay or not. I don't think the government should have a hand in marriage at all.

There's no other way of settling this than by giving the gays a seperate state where they make the laws that way the straights here will be happy, and that way the gays will be happy because they will be sovereign over their nation and no one could legally force them to keep marriage straight and they won't need to marching to try to convince other governments to give them marriage rights. Problem solved. The arguing stops and both sides are happy.

Human creations are unnatural because man created them, not nature. Any way of achieving immortality through technology would be artificial.

Well wait a second...why is man's creation thusly unnatural? If something natural created it, why can't it also be natural, but just in a different way?

Would I prevent people from doing things? I would prevent them from raping, stealing, and murdering, yes.

You know exactly what I meant. I was referring to the development of technologies that might, say, lead to immortality. Would you prevent such developments and/or interfere in their usage?

But have you been talking to a doctor about it though? Because if that alone can trigger feeling ill, then I doubt the public displays of affection themselves are doing that. I rarely if ever feel sick from them...

No, I haven't. But I stopped feeling ill from being around people and now I just feel ill when I see people kissing and stuff in person. If I see people kiss on TV or something it still looks gross to me but it doesn't make me feel ill.

No, I haven't. But I stopped feeling ill from being around people and now I just feel ill when I see people kissing and stuff in person. If I see people kiss on TV or something it still looks gross to me but it doesn't make me feel ill.

You really should talk to a doctor, that doesn't sound healthy.

Cannibalism was only used under very certain circumstances in the past, or by mentally disturbed people.

I don't think I need to stop you from creating an artificial afterlife by living forever because I don't think technology will get there in time. If, however it does, then who knows.
See my point about cryonics being a "stepping stone"

As for cannibalism, I didn't think you'd respond that quickly when I edited my post, but I guess it wasn't the best example anyway. But still your comment about the PEOPLE who practice cannibalism is irrelevant; if it's "natural" for sharks, how is it "un-natural" for humans? Evolutionarily, aren't we sharks' cousins?

Well wait a second...why is man's creation thusly unnatural? If something natural created it, why can't it also be natural, but just in a different way?

You know exactly what I meant. I was referring to the development of technologies that might, say, lead to immortality. Would you prevent such developments and/or interfere in their usage?

I might try to prevent their development and interfere with their usage. Maybe I'd just propose arguments against it, and make people think about the technology before rushing in blindly. I am against this type of tech, so I probably would try to get my views heard, even if I didn't try to completely stop its development.

She's asexual.

It's not supposed to.

Oh.

I see.

Human creations are unnatural because man created them, not nature.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I make new cells constantly to replace dying ones; does that make their occurrance any less natural? Similarly, nature will often respond to the effects of mankind (such as pollution) and produce irregular outcomes despite having no conscious human creative process.

You really should talk to a doctor, that doesn't sound healthy.

It's probably more of a psychological thing, considering the nausea from being around people in general went away a while after I talked to a psychiatrist about it.

It's probably more of a psychological thing, considering the nausea from being around people in general went away a while after I talked to a psychiatrist about it.

Oh, are you still seeing your psychiatrist?

You really should talk to a doctor, that doesn't sound healthy.
*nods* Again, I doubt it's the sight of affection, probably some sort of medical condition she notices more when seeing affection for some reason.

I might try to prevent their development and interfere with their usage. Maybe I'd just propose arguments against it, and make people think about the technology before rushing in blindly. I am against this type of tech, so I probably would try to get my views heard, even if I didn't try to completely stop its development.
I noticed you didn't respond to Kyronea's comments about if something natural created it and it created something else etc...

Oh, are you still seeing your psychiatrist?

I'm seeing a different one now. It's been a couple years since the illness around people in general went away.

I might try to prevent their development and interfere with their usage. Maybe I'd just propose arguments against it, and make people think about the technology before rushing in blindly. I am against this type of tech, so I probably would try to get my views heard, even if I didn't try to completely stop its development.

You are certainly free to have your views heard. I would, however, caution against physically trying to prevent such technologies from being developed. I don't think people would like that.

And so is this discrimination against homosexuals. I mean, it's also about stuff like denying people careers on the basis of sexuality (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html)


Just because the denial of basic rights are less than what black people experienced in the past, it's still a denial of rights - and perfectly comparable to racism.
Ok, fair enough, I do disagree things like having marriage mean between a man and a woman and I CERTAINLY disagree with restricting homosexuals from military service, I just think that something about comparing [having the definition of marriage as being something between a man and a woman] to racism just sounds a bit over-reacting and kinda wanted to defend Sel Appa's view of it not being much of an issue either way since such seemed kinda unpopular.

Actually that's not a bad idea. Call it marriage if you want, but legally it's all civil unions.

Other than that, another thing that I'm tired of is people comparing apples to oranges. Different skin colors marrying is nothing near homosexuals marrying.

Discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation is just as wrong, illogical, and hurtful as discrimination on the basis of race.

And, yes, historically interracial marriage was considered as wrong in the US as you view same-sex marriage.

Sepation of church and state was enacted in order to stop the federal goernment from supporting one religion and forcing everyone to attend that one church, not to keep religion out of government.

Look it up

The USA was founded so you could believe in whatever religion you wished too. That is the whole point CW, separation of church and state was made so you have the right to worship in any way you choose instead of how a government might decide you should. But it doesn't mean that religion, or people who are religious should not be allowed to work in the government or express there religious views if they wish too.

You should look it up as you appear to have no clue.

Separation of Church and State is just that separation of the Church from the State and the State from the Church. Free exercise of religion for all and no law respecting an establishment of religion whatsoever.

Try reading Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1), 330 U.S. 1 (1947). You'll note that although the decision was split as to the specific program at issue violating the separation of Church and State, the Court was unanimous in rejecting your facile view of the First Amendment. From the majority opinion:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

What the hell? Are you comparing this to racism? How the hell is how they can't marry NEAR as bad as racism?

Actually, the poster was comparing separate but equal policies based on race to separate but equal policies based on gender or sexual orientation. The principle that there is no such valid thing as separate but equal is the point.

I agree that both are too trivial to base discrimination on, but how in the world is not being allowed to marry who they want somehow just as bad as having what schools they can go to be restricted?

Yeah but racism isn't JUST about who people can marry, it's about all kinds of discrimination.

No it's not. It's bad, but it's trivial compared to racism depriving people of several rights, some of which are arguably more important than marriage.

Gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and the transgendered are denied a host of rights, not simply the right to same-sex marriage. They face hate crimes, they face legal discrimination in employment, the face anti-sodomy laws, etc., etc. etc.

Gays legally have the same rights as straight people in the USA anyway, straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.

I'm sure lots of other people have said this (I haven't read through all 16 pages), but as long as anyone is being discriminated against, I will talk about it and against it. That includes discrimination against gays. The OP wants to stop hearing it? Let him end the discrimination, and I'll stop bitching about it.

Cannibalism was only used under very certain circumstances in the past, or by mentally disturbed people.

I don't think I need to stop you from creating an artificial afterlife by living forever because I don't think technology will get there in time. If, however it does, then who knows.

In an odd way, this demonstrates that the OP is quite wrong. People can indeed shut up about homosexuality ... by talking about something else.

Interesting little diversion you start up here :)

Ok, fair enough, I do disagree things like having marriage mean between a man and a woman and I CERTAINLY disagree with restricting homosexuals from military service, I just think that something about comparing [having the definition of marriage as being something between a man and a woman] to racism just sounds a bit over-reacting and kinda wanted to defend Sel Appa's view of it not being much of an issue either way since such seemed kinda unpopular.
It might SEEM overstated, granted. I can understand why you could get this impression. But if you examine everything else homosexuals have to face, you'll see it's not overstated at all.

Gays legally have the same rights as straight people in the USA anyway, straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
:rolleyes:
I'm sure lots of other people have said this (I haven't read through all 16 pages), but as long as anyone is being discriminated against, I will talk about it and against it. That includes discrimination against gays. The OP wants to stop hearing it? Let him end the discrimination, and I'll stop bitching about it.

YES! Muravyets, you have a fantastic way of stating my opinions very well.

:rolleyes:


Well, it is true, technically. I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be gay marriages, I just felt like being pedantic.

Well, it is true, technically. I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be gay marriages, I just felt like being pedantic.

No it's not true, technically or otherwise. Even discounting the joke, homosexuals are still not equal with heterosexuals under the law in many other ways.

No it's not true, technically or otherwise.

So straight people can marry the same sex?


Even discounting the joke, homosexuals are still not equal with heterosexuals under the law in many other ways.

Like what? If a straight man said he was gay, he wouldn't be able to get into the military. If a straight or gay man said he was straight, he would be able to get into the military. Again, I'm not trying to defend anything here, just being pedantic.

Well, it is true, technically. I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be gay marriages, I just felt like being pedantic.

No, it's not true. Homosexuals cannot marry the person they love. Heterosexuals can. Ergo, they are not equal under the law.

So straight people can marry the same sex?

No, they cannot, but that is irrelevant.


Like what? If a straight man said he was gay, he wouldn't be able to get into the military. If a straight or gay man said he was straight, he would be able to get into the military. Again, I'm not trying to defend anything here, just being pedantic.

See, the point is that homosexuals are not equal under the law. As you said, if a man or woman(somehow I doubt the military would allow a genderqueer or transgendered person join) was openly homosexual and tried to join the military, they would be denied. In many states there are anti-sodomy laws in place. Homosexuality is not protected under the law from being used as a reason to fire someone or to not hire someone in the workplace. Homosexuals cannot adopt children. Homosexuals are often prevented from donating blood.

These are but a few examples...I'm sure someone with more legal knowledge than mine can come up with plenty more.

No, it's not true. Homosexuals cannot marry the person they love. Heterosexuals can. Ergo, they are not equal under the law.

That's a good argument. I would say that the concept of rights is concerned only with the action being allowed or disallowed, and not the motives behind such action.

Like what? If a straight man said he was gay, he wouldn't be able to get into the military. If a straight or gay man said he was straight, he would be able to get into the military. Again, I'm not trying to defend anything here, just being pedantic.

Well, at least you recognize that. You are taking the first step to healing.

I do that a lot, quibble over minor details just for the sake of being right about something. It doesn't seem to go over well.

See, the point is that homosexuals are not equal under the law. As you said, if a man or woman(somehow I doubt the military would allow a genderqueer or transgendered person join) was openly homosexual and tried to join the military, they would be denied.

Thats the same as if a straight man or woman was behaving in a homosexual way.


In many states there are anti-sodomy laws in place.

I was not aware of this.


Homosexuality is not protected under the law from being used as a reason to fire someone or to not hire someone in the workplace.

Source?


Homosexuals cannot adopt children.

No, two men cannot adopt children.


Homosexuals are often prevented from donating blood.


Also didn't know this, source?

Well, at least you recognize that. You are taking the first step to healing.

I do that a lot, quibble over minor details just for the sake of being right about something. It doesn't seem to go over well.

Yeah, I should really stop, but I can't!

Well, at least you recognize that. You are taking the first step to healing.

I do that a lot, quibble over minor details just for the sake of being right about something. It doesn't seem to go over well.

That's because people hate to quibble unless they're having fun.

I and many others spend most of our time not talking about homosexuality, so the title question is invalid.

Thats the same as if a straight man or woman was behaving in a homosexual way.

Irrelevant. The key is the homosexuality.


I was not aware of this.

The More You Know~!


Source?

How about ENDA? The very fact that homosexuals are trying to get such legislation into place proves that it currently doesn't exist.


No, two men cannot adopt children.

Indeed.


Also didn't know this, source?
I don't have a direct source, but I would suggest you ask homosexuals who live in the United States and post on here about it. I've seen many posts about it whenever AIDS is discussed.

I don't have a direct source, but I would suggest you ask homosexuals who live in the United States and post on here about it. I've seen many posts about it whenever AIDS is discussed.

I don't know how many places it happens in, but I do know that a pretty good fried of mine was not allowed to donate blood because of his sexuality.

Irrelevant. The key is the homosexuality.


The key is the homosexual behaviour, and not the sexual orientation


How about ENDA? The very fact that homosexuals are trying to get such legislation into place proves that it currently doesn't exist.


It seems quite a few states have that bill, or bills like that in place anyway:

"Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia have policies prohibiting both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in the public and private sector.

Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin have state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only. Fifteen other states have laws[3] that have been interpreted to protect transgender persons."


Indeed.


(gay or straight)

The key is the homosexual behaviour, and not the sexual orientation

No, the key is the homosexuality, regardless of whether it's just behavior or the full orientation. Either way they are discriminated against.


It seems quite a few states have that bill, or bills like that in place anyway:

"Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia have policies prohibiting both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in the public and private sector.

Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin have state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only. Fifteen other states have laws[3] that have been interpreted to protect transgender persons."

ENDA is a federal bill, and at most you are talking about half the country. The other half has no such protection. Furthermore, ENDA would help ensure protection for the transgendered.

Also, what source are you quoting?