PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage Debate



Pages : [1] 2

Deadman15
10-22-2008, 05:18
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081021/us_time/californiaandbeyondthebattleovergaymarri age


Apparently both sides have spent around 50 million dollars either to stop gay marriage or keep on allowing it to happen.

Septus
10-22-2008, 05:19
I don't understand why people would oppose gay marriage. They need to take those bibles out of their asses and calm the fuck down.

Carl Ragadamn
10-22-2008, 05:21
You have to love going into a stupid thread and seeing that the OP has already been banned.

Silverhandorder
10-22-2008, 05:21
Wtf is so special about marriage. Make a contract and be off.

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 05:22
Well it's been done so often it hardly matters but fuck it, it's something to post in.

Although honestly, what is there to say? It's another attempt by people to legislate what others are allowed to do to themselves. Gee. What a great idea! How about after this we make it illegal to be Christian? That sounds like a good idea to me!

Edit: Hahahaha, he finally got banned. Although it'd have been better if it happened in those fucking stupid fart threads.

Carl Ragadamn
10-22-2008, 05:25
Wtf is so special about marriage. Make a contract and be off.

The problem would be resolved if the State only recognized civil unions, one type of which was marriage. The anti gay marriage groups are more worried about the label of marriage being attached since there is a religious connotation to marriage. If the state would drop the official sanction of marriage and leave it to the churches to fight out, things would be better.

Dazarthas
10-22-2008, 05:25
You have to love going into a stupid thread and seeing that the OP has already been banned.

Yeah, that's a bit troubling.

On topic, let them marry. If you're worried for whatever strange reason you have, unless two dudes or ladies break into your house and start humping right in front of you, quit worrying, because gay marriage has nothing to do with you.

Septus
10-22-2008, 05:28
Wtf is so special about marriage. Make a contract and be off.

I can't say I'm some pro on the gay marriage debate because I honestly couldn't give two shits, but I think the issue is that without marriage, gay people wouldn't have the same rights as a married couple.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 05:28
Personaly I dont give a crap if gays wish to get "Married". But from my fathers standpoint I can see why some have a issue with it.

His standpoint is this. Gays can have a legal "Union" or anything else they wish to call it other than marriage which the liberals seem to have a problem with. They want to have to the exact same definition for gays as hedrosexuals. This is where his problems arise. He does not believe that the law has the right to change the definition of marriage (one man and one woman). Allowing this opens up an entirely different can of worms.

Septus
10-22-2008, 05:29
Personaly I dont give a crap if gays wish to get "Married". But from my fathers standpoint I can see why some have a issue with it.

His standpoint is this. Gays can have a legal "Union" or anything else they wish to call it other than marriage which the liberals seem to have a problem with. They want to have to the exact same definition for gays as hedrosexuals. This is where his problems arise. He does not believe that the law has the right to change the definition of marriage (one man and one woman). Allowing this opens up an entirely different can of worms.

Why? It changed it from a man and MULTIPLE women to a man and ONE woman.

I think you need to accept that your dad's just a little bitch. Maybe you should smack him around a little.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 05:36
Why? It changed it from a man and MULTIPLE women to a man and ONE woman.

I think you need to accept that your dad's just a little bitch. Maybe you should smack him around a little.


Not in US laws (at least not that I am aware of). He is afriad that allowing the change of definition to give gays equal rights in union and thus calling it a "marriage" would allow all sorts of other perversion of "marriage". Take the example of human to animal, multiple partners, no age restrictions, so on. In argument these things could now be possible due to discrimination of beliefs.

Making a new "Union" and giving the same lawful rights to this new union as marriage. The exception being it is now defined as same sex partners.

Not sure if I am getting the point across clearly here.

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 05:43
Personaly I dont give a crap if gays wish to get "Married". But from my fathers standpoint I can see why some have a issue with it.

His standpoint is this. Gays can have a legal "Union" or anything else they wish to call it other than marriage which the liberals seem to have a problem with. They want to have to the exact same definition for gays as hedrosexuals. This is where his problems arise. He does not believe that the law has the right to change the definition of marriage (one man and one woman). Allowing this opens up an entirely different can of worms.

Was it ever defined that way? Admittedly I haven't followed this debate to closely because I honestly find the entire concept of needing it in the ifrst place absurd, however I seem to recall there was some talk of trying to change the definition to one man, one woman since it wasn't that.

iza
10-22-2008, 05:47
How is there even a debate about this still?
I hate humanity.

Septus
10-22-2008, 05:53
Not in US laws (at least not that I am aware of). He is afriad that allowing the change of definition to give gays equal rights in union and thus calling it a "marriage" would allow all sorts of other perversion of "marriage". Take the example of human to animal, multiple partners, no age restrictions, so on. In argument these things could now be possible due to discrimination of beliefs.

Making a new "Union" and giving the same lawful rights to this new union as marriage. The exception being it is now defined as same sex partners.

Not sure if I am getting the point across clearly here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act

US banning polygamy.

Just understand that what we allow and don't allow depends on cultural norms at the time. Relating gay marriage to bestiality is a pathetic excuse.

If you allow guns to be legal does that mean you've opened the door to allowing people to own nukes? No, don't be fucking retarded. If a state legalizes marijuana, does it mean that legitimizes heroin? No, because otherwise legalizing alcohol would have already done that.

So please tell this to your father, and when he spouts some more bigoted shit (because I hate to tell you, but your dad is a bigot), slap him around a little. It's the way you taught people back in his day.

Kin
10-22-2008, 05:56
Instead of having their own "contract" between them... They wanna corrupt Marriage.


Nothing more, Majority of people don't care if they had something equal to marriage of their own for Man on Man/ Girl on Girl.




But it just so happens that Marriage happens between a man and a woman... so... Find some new way to try and validate yourselves??? Kthx



---

Also first time I saw this on the news about the legalization of it in California, I said to my girl. "I wanna be allowed to marry my cat now". Thats what I equate that to... If we're gonna mash a definition. It has to be allowed to be totally mashed. Not just half ways. That WOULDN'T BE FAIR OMG!!!!!!

Baralis
10-22-2008, 06:00
Just understand that what we allow and don't allow depends on cultural norms at the time. Relating gay marriage to bestiality is a pathetic excuse.



I agree most of it is based on cultural preferences. But relating gay marriage to beatiality isnt so far fetched as far as the law goes. Once you allow a change to fit one it makes it easier for it to be changed again. It would give anyone that wanted the definition changed a basis for argument.

Septus what is so bad about giving same sex unions the same laws as hedosexual marriages but just call it something different?

Satan
10-22-2008, 06:01
Governments have always promoted family values that are good for the overall well being of their society. For example, if a country is overpopulated some governments will promote small families (1 child) with propoganda and benefits. On the other hand if a country is in danger of dying out they will encourage people to have bigger families. Some people think its best for our society if we dont have gays running around everywhere because gay families aren't healthy, therefore we shouldn't promote it. It in no way affects your being gay and living together though.

Kin
10-22-2008, 06:02
I agree most of it is based on cultural preferences. But relating gay marriage to beatiality isnt so far fetched as far as the law goes. Once you allow a change to fit one it makes it easier for it to be changed again. It would give anyone that wanted the definition changed a basis for argument.

Septus what is so bad about giving same sex unions the same laws as hedosexual marriages but just call it something different?


Because then they wouldn't be getting back at those evil straight people who do whats natural.

What fun would this issue be if it wasn't pissing on other people. If they were just pushing for their own "rights" as a couple as they INSIST thats what it is... This would've been over and done with by now. Its not hard to see.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:06
Instead of having their own "contract" between them... They wanna corrupt Marriage.

Didn't I just get done explaining how the govt. passes laws defining marriage all the time based on cultural norms?

Actually I was about to respond in earnest until I realized you're probably just retarded. So I'll just leave it at that.

You're retarded.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 06:08
One issue I have with sam sex marriage is by labeling it so allows more rights when it comes to addoption. I am fully against same sex mates addopting children.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:11
Because then they wouldn't be getting back at those evil straight people who do whats natural.

What fun would this issue be if it wasn't pissing on other people. If they were just pushing for their own "rights" as a couple as they INSIST thats what it is... This would've been over and done with by now. Its not hard to see.

Don't animals do gay shit all the time? Or by natural do you mean "what I do?"

What if racists had said "look black people, you can have all the same educational funding as us, but we just want to have separate white schools and black schools."

That's the kind of segregation you're sponsoring if you want to give "those gays" their own "special" certificate.

The fact that you said you think gay marriage would be "corrupting" marriage really says it all. What about it is "corrupting" marriage?

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:11
One issue I have with sam sex marriage is by labeling it so allows more rights when it comes to addoption. I am fully against same sex mates addopting children.

I'm against your parents having the right to adoption, because their stupid obviously rubbed off on you, lol.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 06:12
Looks like this thread struck a cord with you

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:14
;1844673']Looks like this thread struck a cord with you

I have this strange urge to flame idiots. I can't help myself.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 06:16
I'm against your parents having the right to adoption, because their stupid obviously rubbed off on you, lol.

The reason I dont approve of same sex couples adopting children is simple. Its by thier own choice that they cannot have children. No one is forcing them to put themselve in that situation plus its not natural. I can think of no instances of strictly same sex copulations ever producing a offspring. However I would be willing to watch errr test woman on woman action to see if its possible :sly:

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 06:18
I have this strange urge to flame idiots. I can't help myself.

uh huh

Forget all of this fuss and just move to california, that state gets more ass backwards by the month. I'm sure you and your life-partner will be very happy together.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:19
The reason I dont approve of same sex couples adopting children is simple. Its by thier own choice that they cannot have children. No one is forcing them to put themselve in that situation plus its not natural. I can think of no instances of strictly same sex copulations ever producing a offspring. However I would be willing to watch errr test woman on woman action to see if its possible :sly:

so if they took their sperm and used some sperm/egg bank and fertilized their own baby then you're cool with it?

On the flip side, you would rather some child gets fucked by our social services system than gets adopted simply b/c the couple is gay? Seriously, what an asshole, lol.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:20
;1844683']uh huh

Forget all of this fuss and just move to california, that state gets more ass backwards by the month. I'm sure you and your life-partner will be very happy together.

lol, seriously? "He must be one of them gays!" You're probably a creationist too.

Yantheman
10-22-2008, 06:20
The reason I dont approve of same sex couples adopting children is simple. Its by thier own choice that they cannot have children. No one is forcing them to put themselve in that situation plus its not natural. I can think of no instances of strictly same sex copulations ever producing a offspring. However I would be willing to watch errr test woman on woman action to see if its possible :sly:


Both you and your father are trying to disguise bigotry. Maybe youre not aware of it. But thats all that this is. What does it being natural have to do with it. Machinery isnt "natural." The computer youre reading this on isnt "natural" but I see no objections.

And to the...I barely know what to call it...first argument you make....you know what Im not even going to comment on it, because it doesnt really make sense.

Hackapell
10-22-2008, 06:24
Just a reminder to everybody that the minute this thread slips into gay bashing bad things will happen. So keep it on the level.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 06:27
lol, seriously? "He must be one of them gays!" You're probably a creationist too.

Listen, what you do with your man-friend behind closed doors is none of my concern. But please, just stop shoving your gayness in everyone's faces. Talking with that irritating gay-lisp and parading around in pink assless-chaps a couple times a year does not help your cause.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:27
Just a reminder to everybody that the minute this thread slips into gay bashing bad things will happen. So keep it on the level.

No need, we've come to the conclusion that Baralis & Co. aren't anti-gay.

They're simply pro-orphanfucking.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 06:29
Both you and your father are trying to disguise bigotry. Maybe youre not aware of it. But thats all that this is. What does it being natural have to do with it. Machinery isnt "natural." The computer youre reading this on isnt "natural" but I see no objections.

And to the...I barely know what to call it...first argument you make....you know what Im not even going to comment on it, because it doesnt really make sense.


I will admit I am a bigot. I am a tradionalist and believe some things should just be left the hell alone. I am tired of people that think that they have the right to do whatever the hell they want and not have their actions limit what they are intitled to. In short they want their cake and eat it too.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:30
;1844698']Listen, what you do with your man-friend behind closed doors is none of my concern. But please, just stop shoving your gayness in everyone's faces. Talking with that irritating gay-lisp and parading around in pink assless-chaps a couple times a year does not help your cause.

Is this what they teach you in Bible school? "If you get into an argument, just ignore the debate and accuse them of being gay!"

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 06:32
yes that's exactly what they taught me

Baralis
10-22-2008, 06:32
Im not anti-gay. I dont care if people want to have same sex relations.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:34
I will admit I am a bigot. I am a tradionalist and believe some things should just be left the hell alone. I am tired of people that think that they have the right to do whatever the hell they want and not have their actions limit what they are intitled to. In short they want their cake and eat it too.

Where the fuck did the cake come from? You're bigoted because you have no actual reasoning behind your position other than you don't like gay people. It has nothing to do with tradition, so don't hide behind Thanksgiving you fucker.

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 06:34
I will admit I am a bigot. I am a tradionalist and believe some things should just be left the hell alone. I am tired of people that think that they have the right to do whatever the hell they want and not have their actions limit what they are intitled to. In short they want their cake and eat it too.

So wait, we have a real social conservative on here? Someone who actually favors the "it's forbidden unless allowed" approach? Wow, I thought all you people left a long time ago.

Still, hell why not? I think we should stop allowing marriage at all, it's selfish of people to think they're entitled to it.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:35
;1844709']yes that's exactly what they taught me

Good, then I can showcase you during the next "why religion is bad" thread.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 06:36
I'm pretty sure marriage is a tradition, and a very old one at that

Yantheman
10-22-2008, 06:38
I will admit I am a bigot. I am a tradionalist and believe some things should just be left the hell alone. I am tired of people that think that they have the right to do whatever the hell they want and not have their actions limit what they are intitled to. In short they want their cake and eat it too.

Your argument still isnt making any sense. What youre saying is that you believe gays upon entering a union or marriage are signing an imaginary contract that says gays shouldnt have children and then, by adopting are breaking that contract. That sounds goofy, because guess what, your argument is goofy.

You call yourself a traditionalist, but really youre just more of a homophobe (which you admitted, surprisingly enough).

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 06:40
;1844720']I'm pretty sure marriage is a tradition, and a very old one at that

If you were addressing what I said, then I agree with you of course, but wait! There are still older traditions we could uphold!

Why there's human sacrifice, tribalism, and homosexuality! I think you're absolutely right. Lets uphold traditional values.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:40
;1844720']I'm pretty sure marriage is a tradition, and a very old one at that

Yes but unless you're defending other traditions with the same zeal, it's obviously a facade.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 06:43
Where the fuck did the cake come from? You're bigoted because you have no actual reasoning behind your position other than you don't like gay people. It has nothing to do with tradition, so don't hide behind Thanksgiving you fucker.


What have I said that makes you think Im a homaphobia? I stated im ok with same sex couples having lawful unions. Maybe it shouldnt be labeled marriage simply because of the consequenes of allowing it to be defined as a marriage.

I dont think they should adopt however simply because it is by thier own choice that they cannot have children. Ever heard of cause and affect?

Cake = Same sex relationship Eat it too = have children

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 06:44
I should have quoted the septic tank


It has nothing to do with tradition

Why not just get some kind of civil union? You get the same benefits as marriage, it just isn't held in a church with a priest (as it is not marriage, because every religion forbids it).

Why is there the need to rock the boat?

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:45
Honestly, who gives a flying shit? As long as I can wake up in the morning and walk into my living room without tripping over a pair of flaming queers macking on my floor, I'm fine with it.

But it's corrupting the sanctity of marriage!

Apparently priests raping little children doesn't corrupt the institution of marriage, but homosexuality does.

heroshade
10-22-2008, 06:46
What have I said that makes you think Im a homaphobia? I stated im ok with same sex couples having lawful unions. Maybe it shouldnt be labeled marriage simply because of the consequenes of allowing it to be defined as a marriage.

I dont think they should adopt however simply because it is by thier own choice that they cannot have children. Ever heard of cause and affect?

Cake = Same sex relationship Eat it too = have children

What did I say that made you think I was talking about you? Just stating my opinion dude.

Yantheman
10-22-2008, 06:46
What have I said that makes you think Im a homaphobia? I stated im ok with same sex couples having lawful unions. Maybe it should be labeled marriage simply because of the consequenes of allowing it to be defined as a marriage.

I dont think they should adopt however simply because it is by thier own choice that they cannot have children. Ever heard of cause and affect?

Cake = Same sex relationship Eat it too = have children

Hahah jesus christ. So I suppose you think if a man who knows hes infertile marries a woman who also happens to be barren, they shouldnt be allowed to adopt. That right?

And he thinks youre a homophobe because you already said youre a bigot. Bigotry towards gays is generally classified as homophobia.

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 06:47
I dont think they should adopt however simply because it is by thier own choice that they cannot have children. Ever heard of cause and affect?


Ah, I love this thread, more things I can agree with! However, I don't think you took it far enough. Clearly, no one should ever be able to adopt as they didn't cause the children to be created.

:lmao:

Baralis
10-22-2008, 06:48
Hahah jesus christ. So I suppose you think if a man who knows hes infertile marries a woman who also happens to be barren, they shouldnt be allowed to adopt. That right?



Pretty much. However it is different because they cannot have children not because of thier choice but by outside factors.

Edit - @heroshade no that was not aimed at you. I was replying to Septus

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:49
;1844732']I should have quoted the septic tank



Why not just get some kind of civil union? You get the same benefits as marriage, it just isn't held in a church with a priest (as it is not marriage, because every religion forbids it).

Why is there the need to rock the boat?

I don't think they're demanding priests marry them. They just want to have the same civil marriage license in the eyes of govt. as everyone else.

If you proposed to black people "hey hey, we'll fund your education equally, but we want white schools and black schools," how would they have taken it?

It's just apartheid, segregation, whatever you want to call it. It's a page torn right out of the "separate but equal" racist's handbook.

heroshade
10-22-2008, 06:50
Pretty much.

Edit - @heroshade no that was not aimed at you. I was replying to Septus

Oh, ok, nevermind.

Septus
10-22-2008, 06:53
Pretty much. However it is different because they cannot have children not because of thier choice but by outside factors.

Edit - @heroshade no that was not aimed at you. I was replying to Septus

So you're willing to forsake the lives of orphans because of your petty, bigoted ideals? Well done sir. At least you follow through.

Yantheman
10-22-2008, 06:55
Pretty much. However it is different because they cannot have children not because of thier choice but by outside factors.

Edit - @heroshade no that was not aimed at you. I was replying to Septus

Basically what youre saying amounts to: I dont want people to be able to do what they want, because I just dont feel like they should.

Froed
10-22-2008, 06:56
Why is it that you guys are so sensible on this issue, when you're completely batshit crazy the rest of the time?

I mean, methinks all "marriages" should be processed by the State as civil unions, and religious groups can proceed however they wish (including rendering marriage to gays, if a cleric of said religion is willing).

ALSO, @ Desparado's idea that "acting gay in public doesn't help the gay agenda"

...MAYBE THAT'S WHO THEY ARE!!!!!!! YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!! Do you think gay people put on a show for you? Is "gay" something you can choose to wear one moment to the next? Think if you were forced to act contrary to or hide your true identity for fear of oppression and violence, would you find it conscientious for someone to say, "Oh, well, being a [insert race/class/gender/sexuality/etc that applies to you here] in public is offensive, so could you stop that?"

Baralis
10-22-2008, 06:56
If you proposed to black people "hey hey, we'll fund your education equally, but we want white schools and black schools," how would they have taken it?

It's just apartheid, segregation, whatever you want to call it. It's a page torn right out of the "separate but equal" racist's handbook.


But your trying to change the context of the argument. A black or white person are that way by no choice of thiers. Being gay is a choice at least in action.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 06:58
Basically what youre saying amounts to: I dont want people to be able to do what they want, because I just dont feel like they should.

So if I decide to kill a few children tonight I should be able to do so right? With no consequences?

Hitom
10-22-2008, 06:58
But your trying to change the context of the argument. A black or white person are that way by no choice of thiers. Being gay is a choice at least in action.

Yeah dude, all those closet homos are living a disguise by choice, ofcourse!

heroshade
10-22-2008, 07:00
But your trying to change the context of the argument. A black or white person are that way by no choice of thiers. Being gay is a choice at least in action.

I really doubt being gay is a choice. Go try and be gay right now. I guarentee you'll be back fapping to Mylie Cyrus by morning.

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 07:02
Why is it that you guys are so sensible on this issue, when you're completely batshit crazy the rest of the time?

There are two sets of Forumfallers, the new ones (post 60k), and the old (pre 60k). These groups are entirely different. There's also the GDers, but they aren't Forumfallers so much as incoherent morons.

Well, in addition we all tend to be at least slightly crazy. Why else do you think we've been posting on a game forum for years before it was even in beta? Other than the new crowd who are generally just idiots.

That said, the actual views of most of Forumfall are fairly sensible (or at least they tend towards agreement with mine), most of Forumfall is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. With special emphasis on bashing idiots who can't defend their views regardless of what those views are.

...Wait a second, you've been here long enough to know all this. Why ask?

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 07:02
I don't think they're demanding priests marry them. They just want to have the same civil marriage license in the eyes of govt. as everyone else.

If you proposed to black people "hey hey, we'll fund your education equally, but we want white schools and black schools," how would they have taken it?

It's just apartheid, segregation, whatever you want to call it. It's a page torn right out of the "separate but equal" racist's handbook.

Most people are prepared to tolerate the homosexual way of life, provided it keeps within the bounds of decency, and does no violence to fundamental norms. However, this attitude does not satisfy people like you. For to tolerate is to disapprove. It is only when conduct offends you that you need to exercise your toleration, and you want people to treat homosexuality as normal.

The truth is, homosexuality can never be normal. Our acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, of same-sex couples, and of the gay scene has not eliminated our sense that these are alternatives to something, and that it is the other thing that is normal. This other thing is not heterosexual desire, conceived as an "orientation". It is heterosexual union: the joining of man and woman, in an act which leads in the natural course of things not just to mutual commitment but to the bearing of children, the raising of a family and the self-sacrificing habits on which, when all is said and done, the future of society depends.

Satan
10-22-2008, 07:05
There are two sets of Forumfallers, the new ones (post 2001), and the old (pre 2001).

fixed

Baralis
10-22-2008, 07:05
;1844769']Most people are prepared to tolerate the homosexual way of life, provided it keeps within the bounds of decency, and does no violence to fundamental norms. However, this attitude does not satisfy people like you. For to tolerate is to disapprove. It is only when conduct offends you that you need to exercise your toleration, and you want people to treat homosexuality as normal.

The truth is, homosexuality can never be normal. Our acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, of same-sex couples, and of the gay scene has not eliminated our sense that these are alternatives to something, and that it is the other thing that is normal. This other thing is not heterosexual desire, conceived as an "orientation". It is heterosexual union: the joining of man and woman, in an act which leads in the natural course of things not just to mutual commitment but to the bearing of children, the raising of a family and the self-sacrificing habits on which, when all is said and done, the future of society depends.

Well said Desperado. I am not agaisnt gays as I have said before. My entire issue is they they feel it is their right to act differently but treated the same. This is rarely the case and for good reason imo. What would be next? Pedofiles demanding they are treated no differently simply because they act "out of the norm". What about adoption to them? Allowed?

heroshade
10-22-2008, 07:07
Well said Desperado. I am not agaisnt gays as I have said before. My entire issue is they they feel it is their right to act differently but treated the same.

First amendment ringing any bells?

Declaration o' Independance? "All men are created equal."?

Any of this getting through?

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 07:08
fixed

Oh, right. I'm afraid however the second set ends the instant before you joined. Not at the year end precisely.

Nah though, I was actually being semi-serious. That was only my second serious post in this thread I believe in fact.

palo god
10-22-2008, 07:08
I personally don’t think that gays should be allowed to get the title of marriage, I do think however that they should be allowed to get civil unions. I’m not religious but I do respect the right that people have to their religious beliefs. since marriage is the religious title of a civil union they should leave it up to the churches to grant the title of marriage to gay civil unions.

KillHurt
10-22-2008, 07:09
I don't understand why people would oppose gay marriage. They need to take those bibles out of their asses and calm the fuck down.

It has nothing to do with that anymore. If they were real Christians they wouldn't be discriminating so much. Christianity should invite everyone in, not keep everyone out.

heroshade
10-22-2008, 07:11
I personally don’t think that gays should be allowed to get the title of marriage, I do think however that they should be allowed to get civil unions. I’m not religious but I do respect the right that people have to their religious beliefs. since marriage is the religious title of a civil union they should leave it up to the churches to grant the title of marriage to gay civil unions.

Someone elses religion shouldn't negate somebody elses rights.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 07:11
First amendment ringing any bells?

Declaration o' Independance? "All men are created equal."?

Any of this getting through?


Created equal? Sure but I have not seen an amendment that says you can do anything you wish or act any way you want without making you different.

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 07:12
Created equal? Sure but I have not seen an amendment that says you can do anything you wish or act any way you want without making you different.

I haven't seen one that lets you breathe either. I don't like it. Stop now.

palo god
10-22-2008, 07:14
Someone elses religion shouldn't negate somebody elses rights.

You don't have a right to a religious title, marriage is a religious title.

Krylas
10-22-2008, 07:16
I was just takling about this with my friends. About 4 years ago, when I was 10, I learned that it was illegal. Until then I thought it was totally ok, and when I learned that I was surprised people cared so much.
To this day I'm surprised that people are still bitching about it.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 07:16
Someone elses religion shouldn't negate somebody elses rights.

No one has the right to desecrate sacrament

Sorry, the bible isn't going to be rewritten on the whims of the fad that is "gay pride".

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 07:17
You don't have a right to a religious title, marriage is a religious title.

Yes, it's not like marriage pre-dates recorded history, and for that matter Christianity. Not at all.

heroshade
10-22-2008, 07:18
I want to change the question a bit, since nobodies opinion is going to be changed here.

If you don't support gay marriage, why the hell do you care about it in the first place? In no way what-so-ever does it affect you. At all.

Krylas
10-22-2008, 07:21
I want to change the question a bit, since nobodies opinion is going to be changed here.

If you don't support gay marriage, why the hell do you care about it in the first place? In no way what-so-ever does it affect you. At all.

I brought back to life the Fiction Mayhem thread.
Post in it.

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 07:22
I brought back to life the Fiction Mayhem thread.
Post in it.

I'll try to later, but I'm just waiting on one of my friends to finish up with a bit of drama, before we head over to a beach party.

Poem
10-22-2008, 07:24
;1844793']No one has the right to desecrate sacrament

Sorry, the bible isn't going to be rewritten on the whims of the fad that is "gay pride".

On the fad that is gay pride? I didn't know that being gay was all the rage this season.


I want to change the question a bit, since nobodies opinion is going to be changed here.

If you don't support gay marriage, why the hell do you care about it in the first place? In no way what-so-ever does it affect you. At all.

Agreed. What does someone else's happiness has to do with yours?

palo god
10-22-2008, 07:24
I want to change the question a bit, since nobodies opinion is going to be changed here.

If you don't support gay marriage, why the hell do you care about it in the first place? In no way what-so-ever does it affect you. At all.

Because if you bend one law to please a certain group their going to want more laws bent or completely removed, just like when they legalized sheriah courts in Europe to satisfy the Muslims over there and now some of them want the sheriah courts to be recognized as the only legal courts.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 07:25
If you don't support gay marriage, why the hell do you care about it in the first place? In no way what-so-ever does it affect you. At all.

Like I said originaly I have nothing against gay marriage in itself. I just think if allowed to be termed such it becomes a slippery slope from that point on.

heroshade
10-22-2008, 07:25
I brought back to life the Fiction Mayhem thread.
Post in it.


I'll try to later, but I'm just waiting on one of my friends to finish up with a bit of drama, before we head over to a beach party.

Cool, but a PM would have worked well, lol.

OT: I'm also fairly certain that Jesus of Nazeruth was gay.

Krylas
10-22-2008, 07:26
Because if you bend one law to please a certain group their going to want more laws bent or completely removed, just like when they legalized sheriah courts in Europe to satisfy the Muslims over there and now some of them want the sheriah courts to be recognized as the only legal courts.

Like when we bent the law to give black people the same rights as whites, or when we allowed women the right to vote?
Soon they'll want all white men as their slaves with no power in government!

heroshade
10-22-2008, 07:27
Because if you bend one law to please a certain group their going to want more laws bent or completely removed, just like when they legalized sheriah courts in Europe to satisfy the Muslims over there and now some of them want the sheriah courts to be recognized as the only legal courts.

Thats a completely different thing. Letting gays get married isn't going to cause remove any law other than that of prohibiting gay marriage.

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 07:28
Cool, but a PM would have worked well, lol.

OT: I'm also fairly certain that Jesus of Nazeruth was gay.

True, however a PM would not have distracted me as much, nor given me a +1. Also, my friend finally finished up, I'll catch you later. Time to go have a bonfire.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 07:28
or when we allowed women to vote.


Recent polls showed women in general intended to vote Obama. If this isnt a good example of allowing women to vote being a mistake I dont know what is. :sly:

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 07:29
On the fad that is gay pride? I didn't know that being gay was all the rage this season.

Take a look around man. The parades, the TV shows, the flamboyant lisp, it's all a narcissistic show. I would imagine it's hampering the progress of people who truly believe they are gay.

Krylas
10-22-2008, 07:29
Recent polls showed women in general intended to vote Obama. If this isnt a good example of allowing women to vote being a mistake I dont know what is. :sly:

I'm sure the majority of the black demographic wish to as well, so what are you saying?

Krylas
10-22-2008, 07:30
;1844813']Take a look around man. The parades, the TV shows, the flamboyant lisp, it's all a narcissistic show. I would imagine it's hampering the progress of people who truly believe they are gay.

Sorry for the double post, but holy shit you're an asshole. At least about the parade part.

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 07:31
Just a reminder to everybody that the minute this thread slips into gay bashing bad things will happen. So keep it on the level.

Do you mean the bashing of gays, or bashing in a gay manner?

palo god
10-22-2008, 07:32
Like when we bent the law to give black people the same rights as whites, or when we allowed women the right to vote?
Soon they'll want all white men as their slaves with no power in government!

Again, NO ONE has a right to a religious title, if I invented a new wacko religion and made a new title for civil unions and then certain people wanted that title to their civil unions and didn't qualify based on the principles of my new religion, I shouldn't have to be forced by the government to give them that title.

understand?

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 07:33
Like I said originaly I have nothing against gay marriage in itself. I just think if allowed to be termed such it becomes a slippery slope from that point on.

Animal+human is obviously something completely different than human+human.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 07:33
Sorry for the double post, but holy shit you're an asshole. At least about the parade part.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/gay-pride-parade.jpg

Yea, he's a real MLK.

Yantheman
10-22-2008, 07:33
Well said Desperado. I am not agaisnt gays as I have said before. My entire issue is they they feel it is their right to act differently but treated the same. This is rarely the case and for good reason imo. What would be next? Pedofiles demanding they are treated no differently simply because they act "out of the norm". What about adoption to them? Allowed?

The root of your position stems from bigotry. You believe that homosexuality is inherently "bad" or "immoral" because otherwise your comparison to pedophelia would make no sense. But really, it is neither of those things. You still havent explained why gay couples shouldnt be able to adopt. Your imposing this ridiculous attitude that because they arent physically capable of reproducing, they shouldnt be able to raise children. Dont you see what a stupid fabrication that is?

The same thing goes for your hypothetical question to me earlier. No, you shouldnt be able to kill children without consequence. Im not going to bother explaining why thats an almost comical analogy to make because you already know why.

Yantheman
10-22-2008, 07:36
;1844813']I would imagine it's hampering the progress of people who truly believe they are gay.

Wait a second. Are you saying homosexuality is some sort of choice...that people who call themselves gay are basically delusional?

palo god
10-22-2008, 07:37
Thats a completely different thing. Letting gays get married isn't going to cause remove any law other than that of prohibiting gay marriage.

That in itself is denying the right to the church to reserve the right to give out a title to civil unions that they themselves invented.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 07:37
Animal+human is obviously something completely different than human+human.

Some native New Guinea tribes mary members to children as early as 6 years old. So lets say a few come to the US and demand that since they believe something differently then the typical US citizen that we should change our laws to fit them.

This is just the type of argument that allowing the traditional definition of marriage to be changed will allow. One you allow a change you will then be flooded by every walk of life all wanting their way of life to be recognized.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 07:39
The root of your position stems from bigotry. You believe that homosexuality is inherently "bad" or "immoral" because otherwise your comparison to pedophelia would make no sense. But really, it is neither of those things. You still havent explained why gay couples shouldnt be able to adopt. Your imposing this ridiculous attitude that because they arent physically capable of reproducing, they shouldnt be able to raise children. Dont you see what a stupid fabrication that is?

The same thing goes for your hypothetical question to me earlier. No, you shouldnt be able to kill children without consequence. Im not going to bother explaining why thats an almost comical analogy to make because you already know why.

Adoption means receiving a child as a member of the family, as one to whom you are committed in the way that a father and mother are committed to children of their own. It is an act of sacrifice, performed for the benefit of the child, and with a view to providing that child with the normal comforts of home. Its purpose is not to gratify the parents, but to foster the child, by making him part of a family. For religious folks like myself, that means providing the child with a father and a mother. Anything else would be an injustice to the child.

The implication that adoption is entirely a matter of the "rights" of the prospective parents shows the moral inversion that is infecting modern society. Instead of regarding the family as the present generation's way of sacrificing itself for the next, we are being asked to create families in which the next generation is sacrificed for the pleasure of the present. We are being asked to overlook all that we know about the fragility of homosexual partnerships, about the psychological needs of children, and about the norms that still prevail in our schools and communities, for the sake of an ideological fantasy.

Krylas
10-22-2008, 07:41
Again, NO ONE has a right to a religious title, if I invented a new wacko religion and made a new title for civil unions and then certain people wanted that title to their civil unions and didn't qualify based on the principles of my new religion, I shouldn't have to be forced by the government to give them that title.

understand?
This problem is the making of gay marriage illegal. There are plenty of pastors that would marry a gay couple.

;1844822']http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/gay-pride-parade.jpg

Yea, he's a real MLK.

You went to google images and picked the most outrageous and flamboyant person you could find.
Try this man. (http://inmyheartblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/harveymilk.jpg)

Baralis
10-22-2008, 07:42
Your imposing this ridiculous attitude that because they arent physically capable of reproducing, they shouldnt be able to raise children. Dont you see what a stupid fabrication that is?



Makes perfect sence to me.

Gibsnag
10-22-2008, 07:43
;1844793']No one has the right to desecrate sacrament

In fact, everyone has the right to desecrate sacrament. Because what is sacrament to you is simply bad literature to me.


;1844793']
Sorry, the bible isn't going to be rewritten on the whims of the fad that is "gay pride".

This has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with honoring the things that actually make your country good. I don't give a fuck if your particular little cult wants to stop gay people getting "married" by your holy men, what I care about is the state stopping gay people actually getting married.

Krylas
10-22-2008, 07:43
Makes perfect sence to me.

And that's why we've been calling you a bigot.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 07:44
This problem is the making of gay marriage illegal. There are plenty of pastors that would marry a gay couple.

The church wouldn't recognize it, as they would be doing so against their faith.

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 07:45
Some native New Guinea tribes mary members to children as early as 6 years old. So lets say a few come to the US and demand that since they believe something differently then the typical US citizen that we should change our laws to fit them.

This is just the type of argument that allowing the traditional definition of marriage to be changed will allow. One you allow a change you will then be flooded by every walk of life all wanting their way of life to be recognized.

What? So you think sex between consenting adults can be compared to pedophilia?

Baralis
10-22-2008, 07:46
Wait a second. Are you saying homosexuality is some sort of choice...that people who call themselves gay are basically delusional?

Homosexuality in itself may not be a choice. I dont think it have been proven conclusivly either way. But the act of homesexuality is a choice. How is that different then any other desire? I may have a sexual desire for puppies but that doesnt make me act on it. (btw that was just an example)

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 07:48
In fact, everyone has the right to desecrate sacrament. Because what is sacrament to you is simply bad literature to me.

That's fine. You still don't have the right to rewrite the code of religion.


This has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with honoring the things that actually make your country good. I don't give a fuck if your particular little cult wants to stop gay people getting "married" by your holy men, what I care about is the state stopping gay people actually getting married.

And has been said, civil unions should accomplish the same thing. It simply wouldn't have any religious significance.

I know you really hate those evil holy men, and just HAD to bash me, but try reading the thread before you run off at the mouth.

palo god
10-22-2008, 07:48
This problem is the making of gay marriage illegal. There are plenty of pastors that would marry a gay couple.

If he isn’t at the head position of that religion then it isn’t his right to redefine who is eligible for that religious title.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 07:50
"The church"? Which one? There are many different ones, and lets not forget other religions like joowism and islam either, they all have marriages and have differences in their definitions. MIGHT AS WELL START A CHURCH THAT ACCEPTS GAY MARRIAGES. INFACT THEY EXCIST. YOU FUCKING FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism all forbid gay marriage

Baralis
10-22-2008, 07:50
What? So you think sex between consenting adults can be compared to pedophilia?

Very much so yes. The reason being society itself (relative to argument) are the ones that have made pedophilia a bad thing. In those tribes they do not feel anything is wrong with it and it is not thought of as wrong. The children do not feel the same shame, wronged, used, whatever negative term you wish to apply here. Why because they havent been told by their society that its anything out of the norm.

Septus
10-22-2008, 07:53
That in itself is denying the right to the church to reserve the right to give out a title to civil unions that they themselves invented.

Since when did Christianity invent marriage? Hammurabi's code anyone?

I'm sorry your religion decided to pick the same term that every other society on earth has used (our current US government included). Maybe Christianity should have been a little bit more unique with its titles.

Krylas
10-22-2008, 07:54
If he isn’t at the head position of that religion then it isn’t his right to redefine who is eligible for that religious title.
If the religion that grants this civil union bans the homosexual lifestyle, why would gay people participate in it anyway?
Besides, scripture needs to be modernized. There are many things in the Bible that people don't follow because they seem absurd now.
Not to say that it should be taken literally at all.

Very much so yes. The reason being society itself (relative to argument) are the ones that have made pedophilia a bad thing. In those tribes they do not feel anything is wrong with it and it is not thought of as wrong. The children do not feel the same shame, wronged, used, whatever negative term you wish to apply here. Why because they havent been told by their society that its anything out of the norm.

The key term here is two consenting adults. It's unhealthy for children, who don't know any better, to be taken advantage of by an adult, even if it is not considered wrong by the culture.

Septus
10-22-2008, 07:56
;1844831']For religious folks like myself, that means providing the child with a father and a mother. Anything else would be an injustice to the child.

So by your "godly moral code," it's better for these children to go through social services and just sit in orphanages instead of having a home simply because you have some religious tick? What a good man you are.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 07:58
So by your "godly moral code," it's better for these children to go through social services and just sit in orphanages instead of having a home simply because you have some religious tick? What a good man you are.

Yes, that's right, I hate children. Way to completely dodge my post and form a strawman out of one sentence.

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 07:59
;1844852']Christianity, Islam and Judaism all forbid gay marriage

No shit Sherlock, you missed the point completely. There's nothing wrong with being dim, but know your limitations.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 08:00
The key term here is two consenting adults. It's unhealthy for children, who don't know any better


Have any proof of that or has the viewpoint of your society made you view it that way.


Thats is the point I was trying to make.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:00
Very much so yes. The reason being society itself (relative to argument) are the ones that have made pedophilia a bad thing. In those tribes they do not feel anything is wrong with it and it is not thought of as wrong. The children do not feel the same shame, wronged, used, whatever negative term you wish to apply here. Why because they havent been told by their society that its anything out of the norm.

Well pedophilia is different in one way. We know that children are simply naive and undeveloped. They don't know what they're doing, which is why parents have responsibility over their well-being and actions.

You can't compare the decision model of a child (who would probably let you touch them in exchange for candy, and not realize until they were much older that they were molested and used) to that of an adult who knows what is going on.

I can't believe I have to explain this.

Krylas
10-22-2008, 08:02
Have any proof of that or has the viewpoint of your society made you view it that way.


Thats is the point I was trying to make.

Wouldn't it just be common sense that it is physically unhealthy for a child and an adult to have sex? Like, that just seems like an easy question.

palo god
10-22-2008, 08:02
Since when did Christianity invent marriage? Hammurabi's code anyone?

I'm sorry your religion decided to pick the same term that every other society on earth has used (our current US government included). Maybe Christianity should have been a little bit more unique with its titles.

When I refer to the church I'm referring to all the religious establishments branched off from Judaism not Christianity itself.

Desperado[1G]
10-22-2008, 08:02
No shit Sherlock, you missed the point completely. There's nothing wrong with being dim, but know your limitations.

Except a constant in all 3 religions is that marriage is between a man and a woman, so I'm left to wonder why you would bring them up to reinforce your point (if you have one, that is).

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:03
;1844864']Yes, that's right, I hate children. Way to completely dodge my post and form a strawman out of one sentence.

I'm not dodging your post, I'm simply asking a question. There are many children who have no home. There are people who would like to have a family and adopt said children.

You would, at the very least, rather have the child wait and rot in an orphanage until a couple you identify with wants to adopt said child.

Or is there some other option I'm missing?

Baralis
10-22-2008, 08:04
Well pedophilia is different in one way. We know that children are simply naive and undeveloped. They don't know what they're doing, which is why parents have responsibility over their well-being and actions.

You can't compare the decision model of a child (who would probably let you touch them in exchange for candy, and not realize until they were much older that they were molested and used) to that of an adult who knows what is going on.

I can't believe I have to explain this.

See above post. I understand and by no means condon pedophilia. My point was society teaches us what is wrong or right. Simply because we think something is wrong as a society does not prove it to be correct.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:04
When I refer to the church I'm referring to all the religious establishments branched off from Judaism not Christianity itself.

Are you familiar with Hammurabi's code?

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:05
See above post. I understand and by no means condon pedophilia. My point was society teaches us what is wrong or right. Simply because we think something is wrong as a society does not prove it to be correct.

That's fine, but like I said, there is an objective rationale for prohibiting pedophilia.

Would you want some man to have tricked you into performing sexual favors as a child in exchange for a tootsie roll? How would you have felt when you grew up and realized what the fuck had happened to you?

So you're wrong in relating pedophilia to homosexuality, which was MY point.

Krylas
10-22-2008, 08:07
See above post. I understand and by no means condon pedophilia. My point was society teaches us what is wrong or right. Simply because we think something is wrong as a society does not prove it to be correct.

Than what does? What we believe as a society-that's everything. That is what's wrong or right. Things such as natural law, human rights, morals...religion, that's all from society.
Where the fuck are you going with this?

Baralis
10-22-2008, 08:08
I'm not dodging your post, I'm simply asking a question. There are many children who have no home. There are people who would like to have a family and adopt said children.

You would, at the very least, rather have the child wait and rot in an orphanage until a couple you identify with wants to adopt said child.

Or is there some other option I'm missing?

I honestly dont know what the orphan to adopting parents ratio actually is. The only case I know first hand of a person that putting a child up for adoption the child was adopted while still in the womb long before birth. Not only was it adopted but the adopting parents payed the natural mother all medical expenses but payed her on top of that.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 08:09
Than what does? What we believe as a society-that's everything. That is what's wrong or right. Things such as natural law, human rights, morals...religion, that's all from society.
Where the fuck are you going with this?


And society in my generation taught me being gay was wrong and sinful. So does that make it so?

palo god
10-22-2008, 08:10
If the religion that grants this civil union bans the homosexual lifestyle, why would gay people participate in it anyway?

Exactly, that’s why they should just fight for civil union rights, since they actually should have rights to those, so instead of bitching about a religious title they should actually try focusing on getting the civil union rights instead.


scripture needs to be modernized. There are many things in the Bible that people don't follow because they seem absurd now.
Not to say that it should be taken literally at all.

Its against their religion to add or take out anything from the bible.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:10
;1844831']Adoption means receiving a child as a member of the family, blah blah blah blah blah.

To respond to the rest of your post: What is the difference in motivation between a heterosexual couple wanting to adopt and a homosexual couple wanting to adopt?

Krylas
10-22-2008, 08:11
Exactly, that’s why they should just fight for civil union rights, since they actually should have rights to those, so instead of bitching about a religious title they should actually try focusing on getting the civil union rights instead.Its against their religion to add or take out anything from the bible.

Maybe I just think "Renegade Priests" sounds neat.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:11
I honestly dont know what the orphan to adopting parents ratio actually is. The only case I know first hand of a person that putting a child up for adoption the child was adopted while still in the womb long before birth. Not only was it adopted but the adopting parents payed the natural mother all medical expenses but payed her on top of that.

What the fuck? How old are you kid? Do you not see the commercials for the countless foster children who need donations. "Not everyone can be a foster parent, but anyone can help a foster child," etc etc?

Baralis
10-22-2008, 08:14
What the fuck? How old are you kid? Do you not see the commercials for the countless foster children who need donations. "Not everyone can be a foster parent, but anyone can help a foster child," etc etc?

Im in my mid 30s. And oh yea I see all those commercials that want you to send them your money so that they can take 98 cents of every dollar while thier CEOs make 6 digit incomes. Ya know if they would give all the money recieved to actually help children the children might get taken care of.

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 08:15
"jooism"? I smell an Anti-Semite, that or you're a total retard, but back to your question. The reason why marriage is a common title to civil unions is because most of the religions that use the title branched off of Judaism which first started using that specific title, when I refer to the church I'm referring to the heads of all those religions, and until all those religions agree to allow gays the privilege of obtaining the religious title of marriage they shouldn’t be allowed to have it.

I don't smell like anti-semite, must be you. Why would not being anti-semite make me a total retard? Are you aware of what you said in that sentence? :lmao:

Anyways, what you said in your other post was that the church has the right to define marriage. Now you say your definition of "the church" is the heads of islam, christianity, and joowism, I.E. every branch of Judaism. You also say that all of those (all branches of the branches?...) should have to approve of gay marriage for it to be allowed. This creates problems.

By your standards, the religions would have to agree on everything else that was originally "invented" by them as well, or it wouldn't be allowed.

By your standards, if all religions accepted gay marriage except islam, you wouldn't want it to be allowed.

Judaism didn't invent marriages BTW.

palo god
10-22-2008, 08:15
Are you familiar with Hammurabi's code?

And what did it define marriage as? And did it call it marriage?

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:17
Im in my mid 30s. And oh yea I see all those commercials that want you to send them your money so that they can take 98 cents of every dollar while thier CEOs make 6 digit incomes. Ya know if they would give all the money recieved to actually help children the children might get taken care of.

That's besides the point. So you know then that there are obviously more orphans than parents who want to adopt. Seriously man you're either really high or you have a brain the size of a peanut. How do you derail to corrupt foster npo's lol.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 08:19
That's besides the point. So you know then that there are obviously more orphans than parents who want to adopt. Seriously man you're either really high or you have a brain the size of a peanut. How do you derail to corrupt foster npo's lol.

You brought up the commercial. My point was they want you to believe that the world is just hopelessly overrun by needy starving children that have no hope. It fits thier agenda.

palo god
10-22-2008, 08:24
I don't smell like anti-semite, must be you. Why would not being anti-semite make me a total retard? Are you aware of what you said in that sentence?

Do you even know how to read? Read what I said again then come back and apologize for being an idiot.


Anyways, what you said in your other post was that the church has the right to define marriage. Now you say your definition of "the church" is the heads of islam, christianity, and joowism, I.E. every branch of Judaism. You also say that all of those (all branches of the branches?...) should have to approve of gay marriage for it to be allowed.

Yep that’s what I’m saying.


This creates problems.

Only for the people that don’t want to follow the religious laws of a religion to obtain a religious title.


By your standards, the religions would have to agree on everything else that was originally "invented" by them as well, or it wouldn't be allowed.

Where did you get that from? They all agree that marriage is a religious title that should only be given to a man and a woman.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:30
And what did it define marriage as? And did it call it marriage?

Obviously it didn't call it marriage, there was no fucking English yet you moron. My point was the institution of marriage is not beholden to any church, least of all yours.

Sorry if the government happens to call it "civil marriage." I think it would definitely be wise for the government to just label all couples as "civil union." That way the religious crowd could still feel like they're not bigoted and the gay people wouldn't feel segregated.

nathanpinard
10-22-2008, 08:32
I don't' care what they do. But one thing I'm sick of is gays asking for far more rights than even heterosexuals have. Disneyland comes to mind...

Baralis
10-22-2008, 08:33
It isn't even the government's business to define marriage in the first place, that's something that we do, and we don't need some goddamned sanction from the government to do it. So what if the government says "Gays cannot be wed!"? What, they can't get a government-issued "license" to be "married"? Who the fuck cares. A piece of paper does not define marriage, and it never will.

I agree with the definition of marriage being made by the individual and thier beliefs. If it were as simple as that then it could be left alone. However the government does define marriage when it comes to the laws that pertain to marriage.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:33
God fucking damnit people, shut the fucking hell up about gay people getting married. It isn't even the government's business to define marriage in the first place, that's something that we do, and we don't need some goddamned sanction from the government to do it. So what if the government says "Gays cannot be wed!"? What, they can't get a government-issued "license" to be "married"? Who the fuck cares. A piece of paper does not define marriage, and it never will.

Yes, but something as simple as that can segregate you from society.

Like for example, if I decided it'd be good to make two different sets of schools, one for black kids one for white. I'd fund them equally, so quit your bitching.

In the case of marriage, it actually has legal implications. Like I said in the post above this, the govt. should just label all couples as civil union and be done with it.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 08:35
Yes, but something as simple as that can segregate you from society.

Like for example, if I decided it'd be good to make two different sets of schools, one for black kids one for white. I'd fund them equally, so quit your bitching.

In the case of marriage, it actually has legal implications. Like I said in the post above this, the govt. should just label all couples as civil union and be done with it.


Labeling them all as civil unions as far as laws and regulation goes that might work fine.

palo god
10-22-2008, 08:35
Obviously it didn't call it marriage, there was no fucking English yet you moron. My point was the institution of marriage is not beholden to any church, least of all yours.

Sorry if the government happens to call it "civil marriage." I think it would definitely be wise for the government to just label all couples as "civil union." That way the religious crowd could still feel like they're not bigoted and the gay people wouldn't feel segregated.

You're talking about civil unions and I know they didn't call it marriage I was trying to make you look like a total idiot and I succeeded, they created civil unions not the religious title of marriage, and I want gay people to have the right to get a civil union, and I'm not in a religion I'm an agnostic.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:38
You're talking about civil unions and I know they didn't call it marriage I was trying to make you look like a total idiot and I succeeded, they created civil unions not the religious title of marriage, and I want gay people to have the right to get a civil union, and I'm not in a religion I'm an agnostic.

Well if you're going to make that distinction, then I'll have to make the distinction between the religious institution of marriage vs. the US government's civil marriage license.

Sorry it sounds similar, but it's a public license like any other. If I make a title "Driver" for my organization does that mean I can make it so you can't get a driver's license? lolol :D

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:39
Labeling them all as civil unions as far as laws and regulation goes that might work fine.

But then the party's wouldn't have any polarizing issue to woo you with, which I think is what frustrated Surly close to the point of self sodomy.

palo god
10-22-2008, 08:44
Well if you're going to make that distinction, then I'll have to make the distinction between the religious institution of marriage vs. the US government's civil marriage license.

Sorry it sounds similar, but it's a public license like any other. If I make a title "Driver" for my organization does that mean I can make it so you can't get a driver's license? lolol :D

replace marriage with union in the license and you're all set.

and no because being able to drive is a right and it should not be compared with the privilege to have a religious title attached to your civil union.

Surly
10-22-2008, 08:46
I agree with the definition of marriage being made by the individual and thier beliefs. If it were as simple as that then it could be left alone. However the government does define marriage when it comes to the laws that pertain to marriage.
It can be that simple because it is that simple. The recognition of the state does not consummate the union between two people, their own consent does. Their consent is sometimes reliant on other establishments like religion and state, but at the end of the day the only two people who can recognize marriage are the ones who enter into it.

Simply because government claims to have "defined" something does not mean that it has been defined.


Yes, but something as simple as that can segregate you from society.

Like for example, if I decided it'd be good to make two different sets of schools, one for black kids one for white. I'd fund them equally, so quit your bitching.

In the case of marriage, it actually has legal implications. Like I said in the post above this, the govt. should just label all couples as civil union and be done with it.Yeah, that's fine and dandy. If you want to just shit out civil union certificates to anyone who wants them, good, government is supposed to be blind. Go for it.

But don't tell me marriage has any kind of legal implications. Segregation whining, my ass. It's all perceptual. And it all depends on who you look to to achieve "rights"... government, or self? Most of the time people want marriage classification to sue people for half their shit during a "divorce", they're just looking for a payout.

As far as tax purposes... if you decide to pay taxes, good for you, but the government can definitely tell you what they do and don't recognize as a civil union for the purpose of taxation. I'd gladly get a civil union with a friend of mine to get some tax breaks... but see, these are just laws, they have nothing to due with the issue everyone is arguing about which is "equality" and "fairness". These things don't come from government.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:47
replace marriage with union in the license and you're all set.

Right, I think that's the best solution. I think the biggest wrench right now is that there's a marriage license for hetero's and a union license for gays. I don't see why the govt. doesn't just replace "civil marriage" with "civil union" in all instances.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:53
But don't tell me marriage has any kind of legal implications.

It's more than just tax purposes. For one thing, being legally viewed as "family" so you can see them if they're dying in the hospital? There's a bunch of other things but I cba'ed to look it up.

APEist
10-22-2008, 08:54
I don't oppose gay marriage or gay anything for that matter... well, except one thing.

I don't think gay couples should be able to have their own babies.

I think they should be able to adopt, but no 'borrow this sperm' or 'borrow this egg' bullshit.

The exception is when it's a Juno type situation, where someone gets pregnant and doesn't want the kid and doesn't want to abort.

Overpopulation is a bitch, and it's just getting worse. Homosexuality could be nature's way of trying to stem of tide of new people flying out of vaginas everywhere. I have no evidence at all to back up my theory that homosexuality is becoming more prevalent (just more accepted), but if I'm right, it could just be evolution at work. And if it's not natural evolution, it is surely at least social evolution.

Of course, I'm also for granting bonuses to heterosexual couples who have 2 or 1 kid(s).

Bottom line: stop having too many babies, people.

Septus
10-22-2008, 08:56
Homosexuality could be nature's way of trying to stem of tide of new people flying out of vaginas everywhere.

I smell a bumpersticker.

palo god
10-22-2008, 08:59
I smell a bumpersticker.

I dare you to put it on your car.....or tattoo it on your ass.:p

Surly
10-22-2008, 09:00
It's more than just tax purposes. For one thing, being legally viewed as "family" so you can see them if they're dying in the hospital? There's a bunch of other things but I cba'ed to look it up.
You're failing to look at these government regulations for what they are, which is just a rigidly structured set of rules and red tape to qualify for government-granted benefits granted their own misnomers. It doesn't matter what moniker they brand to it, these are rules and structures which only pertain to the legal system and have no bearing on what a family is, what a marriage is, or who people are.

The freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness are supposed to be self evident. In fact, they are. The moment you embark down that road of allowing government to define morality for you, you've given up that right... which you're certainly free to do in any exchange.

If straight marriage were banned, I wouldn't care in the least how it impacted my "family", it would just create a hassle of having to fill out the right paperwork to achieve the life I wanted within that system. Government hassles everyone some time or another with these things. It is a mistake, and a self-imposed victimization for those who do it, to entwine regulation with moral, personal ideas. But then, I don't tend to allow myself to be defined by bureaucracy.

Septus
10-22-2008, 09:10
The freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness are supposed to be self evident. In fact, they are. The moment you embark down that road of allowing government to define morality for you, you've given up that right... which you're certainly free to do in any exchange.

I get your point. But to use the hospital case as an example, there simply has to be some set of rules when you're dealing with hundreds of millions of people.

So they say "if you're a family member you can come in." Clear cut, easy to enforce. Otherwise you may have all sorts of people and the hospital has no fucking idea who to let in and who not to.

Right now, a gay dude would simply not be allowed since he is not family (in the legal sense).

As for segregation, I'd say it's worth fighting against. I wouldn't settle for a separate license for brown people just because some old, wrinkly, white fucks couldn't handle it (I'm brown in case that didn't make sense).

Vanno
10-22-2008, 09:42
Churches don't have a patent on marriage, and the Constitutions doesn’t grant rights based on collectivism; i.e. the homophobes have no leg to stand on, and gay marriage won't affect anyone who isn't a complete paranoid douche interjecting themselves in others business.

Surly
10-22-2008, 10:08
I get your point. But to use the hospital case as an example, there simply has to be some set of rules when you're dealing with hundreds of millions of people.

So they say "if you're a family member you can come in." Clear cut, easy to enforce. Otherwise you may have all sorts of people and the hospital has no fucking idea who to let in and who not to.The hospitals can set whatever policies they want. I've been in an emergency room during a heart attack for people I didn't even know before because they thought I was a friend. I've also worked in hospitals that prohibited everyone except immediate family, and some which have allowed extended family. It's not a law.


Right now, a gay dude would simply not be allowed since he is not family (in the legal sense). Hospital policy, not law. Besides, he could just lie and say he's the dude's brother. Or husband, whether a legal "civil union" or not. Civil union does not make you capable of having a legal right to walk in to see patients.


As for segregation, I'd say it's worth fighting against. I wouldn't settle for a separate license for brown people just because some old, wrinkly, white fucks couldn't handle it (I'm brown in case that didn't make sense).Segregation in the sense you're talking about is the product of social opinion, and it isn't government's place to brainwash people. Moreover, that kind of segregation isn't even material because it's also the product of your own perception. What you're alluding to is that the government has some kind of magical power to declare through regulation what does and does not make some one acceptable in society. That's not a power they could ever hope to have, that's just a fluid product of humanity's own sense of morality. And as I continually state, government legislating morality has precisely no influence on that.

Aragoni
10-22-2008, 10:22
I don't see a reason to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married (as long as the government doesn't force the priest to do the ceremony, of course). Girls making out in church would make the place so much more entertaining.

Hitom
10-22-2008, 10:23
Girls making out in church would make the place so much more entertaining.

Fuck yeah! Lesbian weedings, id crash those.

Spineless_DoO
10-22-2008, 10:59
I don't understand why people would oppose gay marriage. They need to take those bibles out of their asses and calm the fuck down.

It has little to do with the bible these days. People are not that stupid as to ignore nature entirely. We dont see dogs, cats, elephants, horses, ect, fucking eachother in the pooper. We sure dont expect the most advanced life form on the planet (humans, well most of the time) to be doing that shit either. Its not natural. If people want to defile the way nature works they can do it in doors. I am sure not going to support my gov giving any special treatment to people who should be seeking treatment for an illness. Im all for covering gay folks in the mental system. The fact remains there is something wrong with them. They do this of there own choosing. That should not be supported by gov.

Vanno
10-22-2008, 11:05
Yes because supporting ass pirates and letting them loose publicly doesnt send a message to children right? Remember the constitution protects you so long as what you do does not cause harm in some way to others around you. If Joe and Dave want to fonder eachothers balls they can do it inside and they dont have the write to march around town imposing inhuman practices on the rest of the people who have no way of protecting themselfs from it short of never going outside ever again.

Yes, because gays gallavant about public barebacking one another, you fucking idiot.

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 11:30
It has little to do with the bible these days. People are not that stupid as to ignore nature entirely. We dont see dogs, cats, elephants, horses, ect, fucking eachother in the pooper. We sure dont expect the most advanced life form on the planet (humans, well most of the time) to be doing that shit either. Its not natural. If people want to defile the way nature works they can do it in doors. I am sure not going to support my gov giving any special treatment to people who should be seeking treatment for an illness. Im all for covering gay folks in the mental system. The fact remains there is something wrong with them. They do this of there own choosing. That should not be supported by gov.

Actually, quite a few animals practise homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals). What we don't see, is male animals licking female animals' pussies, female animals sucking male animals' cocks, or male animals fucking female animals in the ass. We don't see animals clothing their penises in latex in order to have sex without reproducing. We don't see animals using any kind of contraception at all.

By following your way of thinking, we see that homosexuality is OK, but any kind of heterosexuality not causing reproduction is wrong. From this we can draw the conclusion that you're epic fail.

The thing is though, none of that matters. What matters, is that as long as there is a legal term called marriage I should be able to marry whoever I damn please except children and mentally impaired people. It's part of my rights as a human being.

Aragoni
10-22-2008, 11:32
It has little to do with the bible these days. People are not that stupid as to ignore nature entirely. We dont see dogs, cats, elephants, horses, ect, fucking eachother in the pooper. We sure dont expect the most advanced life form on the planet (humans, well most of the time) to be doing that shit either. Its not natural. If people want to defile the way nature works they can do it in doors. I am sure not going to support my gov giving any special treatment to people who should be seeking treatment for an illness. Im all for covering gay folks in the mental system. The fact remains there is something wrong with them. They do this of there own choosing. That should not be supported by gov.

What tha FUCK are you talking about?! Most mammals has gay sex, it's just a way of life. Our dog does it with the neighbor dog. The reason for that isn't love or pleasure though, it's a way to show "Who's the man". Dogs also tries to hump humans (you know, they sneak up on the legs at times when they're puppies) at times. Mine stoped though after punching him and screaming his name. :)

You can see all sexualities that exists within the Human race in the animal world. Pedophillia, necrophillia, heterosexuality, homosexuality and so on.. We're not different from other animals when it comes to sex.. Except that some people has strange fetishes but I'm not going to go into that.
You seriously need to read about it before you spew out your retarded "facts".

What can be more natural then that that is happening in the wild nature? Gay sex is there and thus it's IMO natural. Hell even pedophillia is natural too but that's not between two consenting adults and thus it shouldn't be legal IMHO.

Schmaus
10-22-2008, 12:22
Personaly I dont give a crap if gays wish to get "Married". But from my fathers standpoint I can see why some have a issue with it.

His standpoint is this. Gays can have a legal "Union" or anything else they wish to call it other than marriage which the liberals seem to have a problem with. They want to have to the exact same definition for gays as hedrosexuals. This is where his problems arise. He does not believe that the law has the right to change the definition of marriage (one man and one woman). Allowing this opens up an entirely different can of worms.


do you always quote your father for things you believe in yourself? like that time you were talking about your connections to the KKK.

Anyway

Let gays get married , for the church and state.

tell your daddy that if the law does not have the right to change some (maybe his?) greatgreatgrandfathers might still be allowed to kill african americans without repurcussion.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 12:38
What have I said that makes you think Im a homaphobia? I stated im ok with same sex couples having lawful unions. Maybe it shouldnt be labeled marriage simply because of the consequenes of allowing it to be defined as a marriage.

I dont think they should adopt however simply because it is by thier own choice that they cannot have children. Ever heard of cause and affect?

Cake = Same sex relationship Eat it too = have children

are you like the rest of the people on here and a libertarian? do you beleive in liberty?

or is it just liberty for some.

Forgin
10-22-2008, 12:40
How about we allow gay people to marry, but instead of calling it marriage, we call it 'buttbuddies'?

Razel
10-22-2008, 12:44
It has little to do with the bible these days. People are not that stupid as to ignore nature entirely. We dont see dogs, cats, elephants, horses, ect, fucking eachother in the pooper. We sure dont expect the most advanced life form on the planet (humans, well most of the time) to be doing that shit either. Its not natural. If people want to defile the way nature works they can do it in doors. I am sure not going to support my gov giving any special treatment to people who should be seeking treatment for an illness. Im all for covering gay folks in the mental system. The fact remains there is something wrong with them. They do this of there own choosing. That should not be supported by gov.

w8, i thought animals did it in the 'pooper' :confused:

jonyak
10-22-2008, 12:50
good god, I just finished reading this thread and the idiocy of some people is simply astounding.

and trying to hide behind "thats what I was taught in my day" is fucking pathetic.

Razel
10-22-2008, 13:19
:bang:

thanks for making yourself look like a bigger idiot.

lol you got me wrong, i dont give a fuk what anyone does, as long as they dont try to push their shit, no pun intended, on me. I don't however condone the behavior and dont feel people should have to pay taxes in order to perpetuate it.

its like.... say johnny sits in class and shoves pencils up his ass cuz its fun. well thats fine and all but it's prolly not the best behavior for everyone on the planet to support with taxes.

if this were a simple love issue i'd prolly be a lil more sympathetic, however this is more of a behavioral issue and well... its simply not natural.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 13:22
lol you got me wrong, i dont give a fuk what anyone does, as long as they dont try to push their shit, no pun intended, on me. I don't however condone the behavior and dont feel people should have to pay taxes in order to perpetuate it.

:bang:

what you have said here is:

"I don't care what they do, but I don't think they should have the same basic human rights everyone else does".

and you just keep digging deeper.

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 13:32
lol you got me wrong, i dont give a fuk what anyone does, as long as they dont try to push their shit, no pun intended, on me.

If the pun wasn't intended, why the fuck didn't you change your wording knowing there was indeed a pun?

Razel
10-22-2008, 13:33
:bang:

what you have said here is:

"I don't care what they do, but I don't think they should have the same basic human rights everyone else does".

and you just keep digging deeper.

basic human rights are one thing, freedoms and priviledges are yet another,.... however if you try to convince me your cock belongs in someones ass.... i'm thinken .... maybe it don't.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 13:34
basic human rights are one thing, freedoms and priviledges are yet another,.... however if you try to convince me your cock belongs in someones ass.... i'm thinken .... maybe it don't.

ok so its quite clear that even though you said you have no problem with it, you are indeed a homophobic asshole.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 13:35
if this were a simple love issue i'd prolly be a lil more sympathetic, however this is more of a behavioral issue and well... its simply not natural.


you sir are an idiot. thank you for proving me right.

surfing the internet is not natural.

driving a car is not natural.

I could go on and on.

Razel
10-22-2008, 13:37
ok so its quite clear that even though you said you have no problem with it, you are indeed a homophobic asshole.

lol nah, as long as you can justify your actions, can sleep at night, and be at peace with your soul, heh go for it, just dont push it on everyone else.

Silverhandorder
10-22-2008, 13:47
Whats stoping gays from marrying now? The only reason they need it is for medical reasons. So why not fight for that, why piss off bunch of christians? Seems counter productive.

m0j0mann
10-22-2008, 13:49
Why is this even debatable? Oh ya, it's forumfall...:rolleyes:

Three words, jackasses:

Pursuit. Of. Happiness.

And two more:

Inalienable. Right.

Vanno
10-22-2008, 13:59
First.

Razel,

What the hell are you talking about. Support with tax dollars? What does gay marriage have to do with tax dollars?




Whats stoping gays from marrying now? The only reason they need it is for medical reasons. So why not fight for that, why piss off bunch of christians? Seems counter productive.

The thing is some Christians would still bitch and moan and say teh queers are getting the same privleges as honest married couples. Furthermore, gays would basically be accepting a second class citizenship and submitting to biggotry by just going for medical benefits.

Moving on,

I've read the dubious argument that an urge doesn't suggest somethign is right. While that certainly is true, it provides no argument as to why two consenting adults having sexual intercourse is a bad thing. It might not be your or my thing, but that doesn't make it bad.

Silverhandorder
10-22-2008, 14:05
The thing is some Christians would still bitch and moan and say teh queers are getting the same privleges as honest married couples. Furthermore, gays would basically be accepting a second class citizenship and submitting to biggotry by just going for medical benefits.

Moving on,

I've read the dubious argument that an urge doesn't suggest somethign is right. While that certainly is true, it provides no argument as to why two consenting adults having sexual intercourse is a bad thing. It might not be your or my thing, but that doesn't make it bad.


First I don't care what christians decide to bitch about. Neither should you.

Second as I said previously gov't is not supposed to be in marriage period. So the answer is not whole new definition of marriage on a federal scale. What gays should bitch about is why gov't is nosing about in people's private affairs.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 14:16
do you always quote your father for things you believe in yourself? like that time you were talking about your connections to the KKK.

Someone remembers that :ohno:

No I was trying to throw his perspective in the mix to add to the coversation and reasons why it may not be good to change the definition of marriage. Personaly I dont care if they call same sex unions marriage or not.




Anyway

Let gays get married , for the church and state.

tell your daddy that if the law does not have the right to change some (maybe his?) greatgreatgrandfathers might still be allowed to kill african americans without repurcussion.

I honestly would say he would be all for that. He thinks it was a big mistake to allow african americans equal rights. He is extreamly racist.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 14:17
are you like the rest of the people on here and a libertarian? do you beleive in liberty?

or is it just liberty for some.

I consider myself a conservative traditionalist and dont like change much ;)

Aragoni
10-22-2008, 14:19
I consider myself a conservative traditionalist and dont like change much ;)

You won't vote for Obama then? :(

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 14:20
He thinks it was a big mistake to allow african americans equal rights. He is extreamly racist.

So why did you feel it was necessary to draw his awesome opinions into this discussion?

Baralis
10-22-2008, 14:21
You won't vote for Obama then? :(


No or any other nominee for that matter. I dont like any of them.


Death to politians!

Aragoni
10-22-2008, 14:24
So why did you feel it was necessary to draw his awesome opinions into this discussion?

*sings* Stand up and be counted show the world that you're a man. Stand up and be counted go with the Ku Klux Klan *sings* :lmao:
Anyone recognize the song? ;)


No or any other nominee for that matter. I dont like any of them.


Death to politians!

Some politicians are OK, but the majority of them.. Yeah I agree.

Temet nosce
10-22-2008, 14:25
Death to politians!

I may die of shock. Regardless of the misspelling, that not only makes sense, it's something I actually agree with.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 14:26
So why did you feel it was necessary to draw his awesome opinions into this discussion?

Because while I dont always agree with his harsh views he is a very intelligent person (far above average) and he will often see issue with things that are overlooked by myself and others.

His IQ is about 142 where mine is only around 117. Damn my mothers genes!

@Temet nosce aye sorry about the spelling. Spelling is something I have never been good at.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 14:39
Because while I dont always agree with his harsh views he is a very intelligent person (far above average) and he will often see issue with things that are overlooked by myself and others.

His IQ is about 142 where mine is only around 117. Damn my mothers genes!

@Temet nosce aye sorry about the spelling. Spelling is something I have never been good at.

you make him sound like a moron.

I know of very few "smart" people who think the way he does. And the ones I know are the kind of people who consider themselves smart while they are really just idiots.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 14:44
you make him sound like a moron.

I know of very few "smart" people who think the way he does. And the ones I know are the kind of people who consider themselves smart while they are really just idiots.


Well while I have admitted to being a bigot I am nothing in comparison to him. He is extreamly narrow minded. One argument we have is my seeing grey area in issues whereas he sees only black and white all the time.

Anyway how did we get on this subject :rolleyes:

Barbarossa
10-22-2008, 14:51
Only gays would be concerned with gay marriage rights.

This I can understand.

What I don't understand is why this subject keeps appearing on these forums on a bi-weekly [no pun intended] basis when it seems the populace here has a majority of heterosexuals who probably don't care either way.

Gays getting married isn't going to hurt anyone in the long run. I don't see why there is a problem with it. Straight folks will remain straight, closet cases will remain closet cases and all will be well in the universe.

Honest Bill
10-22-2008, 14:52
closet cases will remain closet cases .

No i'm not! SHUT UP!

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:01
Only gays would be concerned with gay marriage rights.

This I can understand.

What I don't understand is why this subject keeps appearing on these forums on a bi-weekly [no pun intended] basis when it seems the populace here has a majority of heterosexuals who probably don't care either way.

Gays getting married isn't going to hurt anyone in the long run. I don't see why there is a problem with it. Straight folks will remain straight, closet cases will remain closet cases and all will be well in the universe.

that is like saying only women are concerned with womens rights and only black people are concerned with black rights.

I have a strong opinion of it because I have a gay brother. I have talked to him about it quite a bit. I have asked the questions, you all want to ask but are afraid to. I know his boyfriend. they are in love and more functional than most hetero couples I know.

I look at this as a rights issue on par with women voting and black rights.

so when people bring it up and spout off ignorant bullshit abotu homosexuals it gets me worked up.

the fact that it is still acceptable in most places to think this way makes me sick.

Barbarossa
10-22-2008, 15:06
that is like saying only women are concerned with womens rights and only black people are concerned with black rights.

I have a strong opinion of it because I have a gay brother. I have talked to him about it quite a bit. I have asked the questions, you all want to ask but are afraid to. I know his boyfriend. they are in love and more functional than most hetero couples I know.

I look at this as a rights issue on par with women voting and black rights.

so when people bring it up and spout off ignorant bullshit abotu homosexuals it gets me worked up.

the fact that it is still acceptable in most places to think this way makes me sick.

What effect will gays getting married have on you other than you'll have a brother in law vs. a sister in law?

Will it affect your taxes?

Will your property values go down if a married gay couple buy a house next door to you?

Will married gays put your job in jeopardy?

Seriously, what is there to get worked up over about this issue?

I think most straight, open minded folks just don't give a shit if gay marriage is allowed. I am not going to lose any sleep over it and I doubt the greater percentage of people in this country won't either.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:08
What effect will gays getting married have on you other than you'll have a brother in law vs. a sister in law?

Will it affect your taxes?

Will your property values go down if a married gay couple buy a house next door to you?

Will married gays put your job in jeopardy?

Seriously, what is there to get worked up over about this issue?

I think most straight, open minded folks just don't give a shit if gay marriage is allowed. I am not going to lose any sleep over it and I doubt the greater percentage of people in this country won't either.

I think you read me wrong. I am strongly for it and beleive they should be alowed to be married.

It does not affect me, but it affect someone I deeply care for, which is why I get so worked up about it.

Irodim
10-22-2008, 15:08
Was marriage formed under a religion?

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 15:10
What effect will gays getting married have on you other than you'll have a brother in law vs. a sister in law?

Will it affect your taxes?

Will your property values go down if a married gay couple buy a house next door to you?

Will married gays put your job in jeopardy?

Seriously, what is there to get worked up over about this issue?

I think most straight, open minded folks just don't give a shit if gay marriage is allowed. I am not going to lose any sleep over it and I doubt the greater percentage of people in this country won't either.

It matters for people with principles.

Baralis
10-22-2008, 15:10
Was marriage formed under a religion?

I dont think it has been proven one way or the other. Im sure religious leader will take credit for it but if thats true or not is a different matter.

Kusghuul
10-22-2008, 15:11
Gay marriage is alright by me, but it's up to the respective Church if they wish to allow it. The government shouldn't be allowed to impress its views onto religion, or control it in any shape or form, unless the religion is doing something illegal.

As for gays wishing to adopt, i think they should be allowed to, but i'm not sure if the world is ready for it. Even though gay couples last on average shorter than straight couples, it makes sense from a biological aspect, as many species have homosexuals take care of their young if the biological parents can't. i still think it would be better, hypothetically, if kids were raised in safe, straight families, as kids need both a mum and a dad as a rolemodel, but that's a purely utopian thing, but in reality any one should be able to adopt.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:14
Was marriage formed under a religion?

no actualy, if you do some research it wasn't until like the 1600s or 1700 that the church even got involved with marriage.

I could be wrong with the dates, but I read that once.

Barbarossa
10-22-2008, 15:15
Gay marriage is alright by me, but it's up to the respective Church if they wish to allow it. The government shouldn't be allowed to impress its views onto religion, or control it in any shape or form, unless the religion is doing something illegal.

As for gays wishing to adopt, i think they should be allowed to, but i'm not sure if the world is ready for it. Even though gay couples last on average shorter than straight couples, it makes sense from a biological aspect, as many species have homosexuals take care of their young if the biological parents can't. i still think it would be better, hypothetically, if kids were raised in safe, straight families, as kids need both a mum and a dad as a rolemodel, but that's a purely utopian thing, but in reality any one should be able to adopt.

Religion and government shouldn't even be involved in this issue.

Marriage is a contract between two people to love, honor, respect, etc. each other until death do you part.

The commitment is between the willing parties to live up to the contract of marriage between them, religious kooks and prudish, closed minded politicians should just go on about their business of fucking up the rest of the country and leave the gays be.

Kin
10-22-2008, 15:16
Its cute how the gay supporters feel its ok to be arrogant pricks because they feel they're fighting the good fight.





It really comes down to...


Man + Woman = Children

Man + Man = No children

Women + Women = No children




You do the math. ;)

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:16
Even though gay couples last on average shorter than straight couples,

I would really like to know where you got this statistic.

last time I heard the divorce rate was over 50% for straight couples.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:17
Its cute how the gay supporters feel its ok to be arrogant pricks because they feel they're fighting the good fight.





It really comes down to...


Man + Woman = Children

Man + Man = No children

Women + Women = No children




You do the math. ;)

I don't get why being able to have children matters at all.

there are ALOT of straight couples who cannot or have decided not to have children either. should they not be allowed to marry?

Irodim
10-22-2008, 15:17
I dont think it has been proven one way or the other. Im sure religious leader will take credit for it but if thats true or not is a different matter.

If it is true, I think it does matter. Who are we to re-write someones religion? If that is the case I think gays should not be allowed to "marry" but attain all the same legal rights as someone who is through a domestic partnership. If they want the ceremony to go with it I am sure they can find a Priest/Rabi/whoever to carry it out. I think this form of action would greatly reduce the opposition of gays receiving the benefits of being married. But if marriage does not originate in a religion, then I truly don't see a problem with it.

Bottom line is, I want gay's to have the same rights as everyone else. It doesn't bother me.

Kin
10-22-2008, 15:21
I don't get why being able to have children matters at all.

there are ALOT of straight couples who cannot or have decided not to have children either. should they not be allowed to marry?


How would it not matter?


You're trying to saying being Gay is a normal and regularly occurring thing...


However, if that were true we should all be able to be gay and still have our species continue to thrive. Though if that were the case, the human species would die off... Seeing as it isn't the natural way of things.




Furthermore, Anyone that needs a piece of paper or the governments (other people's) approval is a weak minded douche tool bag anyways. It comes down to a big media circus, look at me parade essentially.

Kin
10-22-2008, 15:21
Bottom line is, I want gay's to have the same rights as everyone else. It doesn't bother me.


And what rights don't they have?

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:22
How would it not matter?


You're trying to saying being Gay is a normal and regularly occurring thing...


However, if that were true we should all be able to be gay and still have our species continue to thrive. Though if that were the case, the human species would die off... Seeing as it isn't the natural way of things.




Furthermore, Anyone that needs a piece of paper or the governments (other people's) approval is a weak minded douche tool bag anyways. It comes down to a big media circus, look at me parade essentially.

you didn't answer my question.

and yes, homosexuality is a natural thing.

Yobaj
10-22-2008, 15:24
Remove the churches right to legally marry people.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:25
And what rights don't they have?

in some places the right to be legaly married, and adopt children.

Kusghuul
10-22-2008, 15:28
Marriage is a contract between two people to love, honor, respect, etc. each other until death do you part.

Yes, that's what Civil partnership is. Religious marriage still has something to do with God/Allah/Ganesha etc.

Kin
10-22-2008, 15:28
in some places the right to be legaly married, and adopt children.



Everyone doesn't have the "Right" to adopt children or get married.

Kin
10-22-2008, 15:28
you didn't answer my question.

and yes, homosexuality is a natural thing.


Its a natural thing... because you say so?

Awesome reasoning there. :rolleyes:

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 15:29
How would it not matter?


You're trying to saying being Gay is a normal and regularly occurring thing...


However, if that were true we should all be able to be gay and still have our species continue to thrive. Though if that were the case, the human species would die off... Seeing as it isn't the natural way of things.




Furthermore, Anyone that needs a piece of paper or the governments (other people's) approval is a weak minded douche tool bag anyways. It comes down to a big media circus, look at me parade essentially.

It is normal and regularly occuring, but how normal or natural it is doesn't even matter.

Reproducing wouldn't be a problem at all if everyone were gay... jesus christ.

Among other things, it's a matter of principle.

Irodim
10-22-2008, 15:29
And what rights don't they have?

I have to go so I will list one of the main ones.

Say one of them has a child (from a straight marriage) and they now are gay and have a domestic partner. If the one with the child were to die. Their partner would not get custody of the child. The child would be sent to foster care even though the "spouse" is perfectly capable and should have the right to take care of them.

Honest Bill
10-22-2008, 15:29
I don't get it. Why would gays want to get married as opposed to a civil partnership? do they get less tax benefits or something?

Kusghuul
10-22-2008, 15:30
Its a natural thing... because you say so?

Awesome reasoning there. :rolleyes:

Why isn't it natural?

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:31
Its a natural thing... because you say so?

Awesome reasoning there. :rolleyes:

not its natural because humans have been doing it since the beginning of time. Animals do it as well.

People are born that way, they do not choose to become gay. so it must be natural.

do some reading on the subject before you make yourself look any more ignorant.

and you are still avoiding my question.

Kin
10-22-2008, 15:35
It is normal and regularly occuring, but how normal or natural it is doesn't even matter.

Reproducing wouldn't be a problem at all if everyone were gay... jesus christ.

Among other things, it's a matter of principle.


So now right and wrong doesn't matter?


not its natural because humans have been doing it since the beginning of time. Animals do it as well.

People are born that way, they do not choose to become gay. so it must be natural.

do some reading on the subject before you make yourself look any more ignorant.

and you are still avoiding my question.

What question?

You have yet to say how being gay is natural or "right"..

And no, People are not born gay... It is the same illusion of choice as any thing else.


I have to go so I will list one of the main ones.

Say one of them has a child (from a straight marriage) and they now are gay and have a domestic partner. If the one with the child were to die. Their partner would not get custody of the child. The child would be sent to foster care even though the "spouse" is perfectly capable and should have the right to take care of them.

Guess they aren't really gay then are they?

Since it "Happens from birth" and they "Don't have a choice"... lmao

Same old dumb reasons....





And to be perfectly clear... I don't care what people do with their time or sexual organs. But I'll express my opinion on it.

And needing a piece of paper to feel validated or "Real" is extremely weak and in many ways, sad.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:37
So now right and wrong doesn't matter?



What question?

You have yet to say how being gay is natural or "right"..

ya, cause everything is a black and white case.

Homosexual sex is neither right nor worng. it is.

hell this shouldn't even be about sex, its about love, two people loving each other, and how you seem to think it is ok for you to tell them how they should love on another.

the question I asked, as you have made it clear you are not reading and are simply holding your hands to your ears and saying " nah nah nah nah I 'm not listening", was, is it ok for heterosexuals that cannot reproduce or choose not to reproduce to get married?

Kusghuul
10-22-2008, 15:40
And no, People are not born gay... It is the same illusion of choice as any thing else.

So you can choose to be turned on by animals?

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:41
So you can choose to be turned on by animals?

this Kin guy is one of the most ignorant people I have ever seen...

Killuminati
10-22-2008, 15:45
I think its incorrect to argue whether or not doing something is natural as a human being in this case. Especially when it has to do with a lifestyle choice. Since, society is incredibly dynamic and adapts to new sets of customs and lifestyles that people develop over time, even though initially they are rejected. Conservatism is deep rooted in the rejection of any kind of swaying of society from tradition, so it does what can to fervently keep the status-quo the norm. Ideologically, it is opposed to any kind of swaying from their traditional values which stems from things such as their religion. Unfortunately this means that it usually isn't possible to convince a conservative that a certain lifestyle that isn't harmful to him shouldn't be outlawed. Since their whole goal in the first place is the preservation of society in the way it currently is. Of course, I find these debates to be meaningless since eventually society overcomes these futile attempts at rejecting the emergence of new lifestyles or the acceptance of current ones.

So, basically, quit being gay

Kin
10-22-2008, 15:48
this Kin guy is one of the most ignorant people I have ever seen...


"You don't agree with me and take what I say as true just cause I say it!!!"

"Omg, You're so IGNORANT MAN!!!!"




Yawn... I'm done with this pointless and weak thread. :rolleyes:


Sorry you're so bitter over fighting a losing battle.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:50
"You don't agree with me and take what I say as true just cause I say it!!!"

"Omg, You're so IGNORANT MAN!!!!"




Yawn... I'm done with this pointless and weak thread. :rolleyes:


Sorry you're so bitter over fighting a losing battle.

you are a sad pathetic person.

you are so ignorant you don't even know what you are ignorant about.

Kin
10-22-2008, 15:51
I think its incorrect to argue whether or not doing something is natural as a human being in this case. Especially when it has to do with a lifestyle choice. Since, society is incredibly dynamic and adapts to new sets of customs and lifestyles that people develop over time, even though initially they are rejected. Conservatism is deep rooted in the rejection of any kind of swaying of society from tradition, so it does what can to fervently keep the status-quo the norm. Ideologically, it is opposed to any kind of swaying from their traditional values which stems from things such as their religion. ***Unfortunately this means that it usually isn't possible to convince a conservative that a certain lifestyle that isn't harmful to him shouldn't be outlawed.*** Since their whole goal in the first place is the preservation of society in the way it currently is. Of course, I find these debates to be meaningless since eventually society overcomes these futile attempts at rejecting the emergence of new lifestyles or the acceptance of current ones.

So, basically, quit being gay


I agree with you... But the problem arises in that they want "Marriage". A term that defines the civil union between a man and a woman. If they wanted their own "word" this wouldn't even be an issue. But they would rather go after "marriage" under the guise of "equal rights".

Kin
10-22-2008, 15:53
you are a sad pathetic person.


Are you trying to prove my point? lol


If you're actually gay yourself I could kind of maybe understand getting all upset. rofl... W/e though. Maybe you're new to the internet. You're in for a rough time if you don't start learning a few things. haha

Kusghuul
10-22-2008, 15:55
I agree with you... But the problem arises in that they want "Marriage". A term that defines the civil union between a man and a woman. If they wanted their own "word" this wouldn't even be an issue. But they would rather go after "marriage" under the guise of "equal rights".

Actually, i sort of agree with you there. Marriage is, in my mind, man and woman (Or several women). But that's why i think it's up to the respective religion to chose what they put in the word marriage.

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 15:58
So now right and wrong doesn't matter?

You have yet to say how being gay is natural or "right"..

Natural isn't the same as being "right". You're dumb

Homosexuality really is natural though. You're dumb.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 15:59
Natural isn't the same as being "right". You're dumb

Homosexuality really is natural though. You're dumb.

don't even bother with this douchebag.

haha he's just an ignorant child.

Killuminati
10-22-2008, 16:01
I agree with you... But the problem arises in that they want "Marriage". A term that defines the civil union between a man and a woman. If they wanted their own "word" this wouldn't even be an issue. But they would rather go after "marriage" under the guise of "equal rights".

Well, marriage is just a contract between two consenting loving individuals. Who defines it as that? The government? Two individuals have the right to contract. It's given to them under the contract clause. marriage is a cultural institution I don't really care for the argument against it because it isn't defined as a civil union...

Aragoni
10-22-2008, 16:04
And no, People are not born gay... It is the same illusion of choice as any thing else.

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
It's set in the womb so please STFU and read about it instead of saying strange and inaccurate shit.

Kin
10-22-2008, 16:04
mar·riage http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/M01/M0168900) /ˈmærhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2.the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5.any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6.a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7.a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8.Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=royal%20marriage).
9.a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10.Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.


IMO, that sums it all up right there.

Also, I'm done here for now... Gonna go play some Asheron's Call... lmao :cool:

Kin
10-22-2008, 16:06
WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
It's set in the womb so please STFU and read about it instead of saying strange and inaccurate shit.


As if this is even proven.... lmao


While I'll state my opinion... I sure as hell don't act retarded enough to say something is fact and can not go either way.

That said, It is a choice.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 16:06
4.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.


hahaha the kid owned himself.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 16:07
While I'll state my opinion... I sure as hell don't act retarded enough to say something is fact and can not go either way.

That said, It is a choice.

he owned himself again.:lmao:

Aragoni
10-22-2008, 16:07
As if this is even proven.... lmao


While I'll state my opinion... I sure as hell don't act retarded enough to say something is fact and can not go either way.

That said, It is a choice.

Did you even go into the link and read? It's proven that people are born gay..
Ow wait... I'm falling for a troll attempt. :(

Kin
10-22-2008, 16:09
4.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.


hahaha the kid owned himself.



Really, typing without thinking is bad and reflects very poorly for the person doing it...


Note how it says Husband and Wife... I don't really have to link the definition of "Husband" and then "Wife" do I?



If you're so secure in your thoughts go out and have gay orgies and shit... Live it up man!! I don't care. You don't have worry about changing my mind. Honestly, it'll be ok!!! lol



he owned himself again.


You really need to work on that thinking part I was talking about above.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 16:11
Really, typing without thinking is bad and reflects very poorly for the person doing it...


and again...:lmao:

Kin
10-22-2008, 16:13
Did you even go into the link and read? It's proven that people are born gay..
Ow wait... I'm falling for a troll attempt. :(


Obviously that couldn't be biased information...


Also, if that were true... That could easily be used as evidence that Homosexuality is a sickness or mutation of normal healthy humans.


You can make data say anything you want really man.

Kin
10-22-2008, 16:14
and again...:lmao:




"Blah blah blah... I can't hear you!!! I WIN I WIN I WIN!!!"





Poor inexperienced troll... I wish you luck in the future sir. :)

Kusghuul
10-22-2008, 16:15
Obviously that couldn't be biased information...


Also, if that were true... That could easily be used as evidence that Homosexuality is a sickness or mutation of normal healthy humans.


You can make data say anything you want really man.

So... Homosexuality is like Downs? A genetic defect? i'd go with a genetic variation, being a bioscience student and all.

Brightrise
10-22-2008, 16:16
jonyak I think we're done here. You can't reason with a person that isn't reasonable ;)

Honest Bill
10-22-2008, 16:17
I know a gay dude who often has his partners ring on his finger..... That's right ... i went there

Kusghuul
10-22-2008, 16:18
jonyak I think we're done here. You can't reason with a person that isn't reasonable ;)

Think somebody from Cats raped Kin tbh. Would explain a lot.

jonyak
10-22-2008, 16:18
jonyak I think we're done here. You can't reason with a person that isn't reasonable ;)

awww. but its hilarious.

Honest Bill
10-22-2008, 16:18
Think somebody from Cats raped Kin tbh. Would explain a lot.

Why don't you trust actors?

Aragoni
10-22-2008, 16:19
Obviously that couldn't be biased information...


Also, if that were true... That could easily be used as evidence that Homosexuality is a sickness or mutation of normal healthy humans.


You can make data say anything you want really man.

Due to the fact that it's from Karolinska Institutet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolinska_Institute) I don't believe that it's biased ;) Hell, all medical researches could be biased. Stop being so paranoid.

Most animals practice homosexuality, not just humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals

jonyak
10-22-2008, 16:19
"Blah blah blah... I can't hear you!!! I WIN I WIN I WIN!!!"





Poor inexperienced troll... I wish you luck in the future sir. :)

oh the irony....

Kin
10-22-2008, 16:20
jonyak I think we're done here. You can't reason with a person that isn't reasonable ;)


Arogoni was the only one I've seen come up with any real retort so far...



The rest of you have just tried shit talking and pretending that because you say so, and feel good about your position on the subject, that its automatically correct and without flaw.


But hey, This is nothing new... Note : "Long term follower" :D

jonyak
10-22-2008, 16:20
But hey, This is nothing new... Note : "Long term follower" :D

oh snap he pulled that card, we all lose...

to someone who is only 22 and has only 1000 posts.:lmao:

Aragoni
10-22-2008, 16:22
to someone who is only 22

I'm only 18. :(

jonyak
10-22-2008, 16:23
I'm only 18. :(

you act alot more intelligent than he does though.

Honest Bill
10-22-2008, 16:24
you act alot more intelligent than he does though.

Are you implying that his intelligence is only an act?

Don't take that shit Aragoni