Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thud on May 16, 2004, 03:51:54 PM
-
Massachusetts leads the way (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/16/rights.gay.marriage.reut/index.html)
.
-
too bad, on the road to hell, I'll let another country take point. no shame in falling behind on that trip.
btw- I'm sure it's not the final word on the subject but the latest here is the courts have allowed an initiative vote to go through, assuming all the needed signatures are gathered, Oregon will be allowing the people to vote on the issue of defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. if the courts don't get involved again, that should shut down the gay marriage thing around here for awhile.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Massachusetts leads the way (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/16/rights.gay.marriage.reut/index.html)
.
So, Thud, are you going to have your wedding in SF or Cambridge?
-
I have a friend who is GAy, and i know a couple of lesbians. They are outstanding people (maybe because they are not the kind of people that overdo their "thing", but act like normal people. I have no problem with them getting "married", but i do object to them beeing allowed to adopt. I think the child should not be forced into a same-sex thing when it will have such a huge impact on thier lives.
my 1000$
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
So, Thud, are you going to have your wedding in SF or Cambridge?
I prefer SF but you can make the final pick on our place, as long as you let me choose the dress...
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I have a friend who is GAy, and i know a couple of lesbians. They are outstanding people
my 1000$
hell yes... lesbians are outstanding stuff... i agree
and send those money to me please :D
edit.: your post explain your white sweater pretty well
:rofl
-
I've known a few gays (that I knew of. who knows how many that it just never came up?), I don't have a problem with gays as people. it's the one aspect of their lives I have a problem with. that one behavior in what may otherwise be a fine person.
but when you get married (legally. they have been doing religious ceremony's in churches that allow it for years), you are having society and the gov't "sign off" on the behavior, sanction it and require everyone to recognize it. that I have a problem with.
when you legalize gay marriage you are requiring everyone in this country to treat them as if they are husband and wife. and the majority of us don't see it that way.
it's not a 'gay bashing' thing, I feel the same way about any immoral behavior.
it is possible to be excepting of the person without being excepting of some of their behavior. and asking (no make the requiring) society to sanction and legitimize this behavior is a bit over the top for me.
-
Quote:
it's not a 'gay bashing' thing, I feel the same way about any immoral behavior.
And there, we have it all in a nutshell.
Ravs
-
Nilsen, there are a lot of good gay people. However, don't assume that whatever they are doing is right because they are good people. Be it a good person or not, it's still wrong.
-
let everybody decides what is good for them selves.
-
Marrigae is a Christian institution, and the bible says a Man and a Woman. Having the gov go in and redefining it IMO is wrong. If gays sought an union equal to marriage, that's fine. But don't redefine something established by Christianity and force all the Christians to accept the new definition.
Besides, to me, it seems like changing the definition of a religious institution goes against a supreme court ruling in 1971, in the case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman)
In the lemon test established by the ruling: (cut and paste from link)
The government's action must not promote a particular religion or religious view;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
It seems like it may violate the third rule, to me anyhow. Maybe a violation of the second rule as well. Anyone else agree?
-
Save us, Jebus!
-
Weavling, this is about civil marriage, not marriage in a church.
-
what if you invent a new religion that does not see same-sex couples as something nasty? I mean... if you only go by prooven eveidence there is really no religion that is spractised today that has a soild proven foundation. They are all based on old books that could have been written by anyone. Would the goverment then step in and tell everyone what is and what is not a "real" religion?
-
It's a joke and most sain people see it as such.
-
Not allowing a husband to beat his wife is also an intanglement with religion, in this case islam. Should domestic violence be allowed to avoid clashing with some religion's principles too?
At the point where a religion becomes intolerant and invasive to others it should no longer be protected or supported by legislation.
@ Weavling: why attributing marriage to christianity? The concept existed long before anyone even came up with the concept 'christian'.
-
Originally posted by Thud
I prefer SF but you can make the final pick on our place, as long as you let me choose the dress...
Of course you can pick it!
I'm ashamed to say I don't even know your measurements.
-
Short reply cause Im doing homework.
Sorry, I probably shouldn't have attributed it directly to christianity. But it is still a religeous institution, and should not be redefined.
And relating this to the beating of one's wife is extreme. Obviously inflicting physical harm warrents legislative restriction.
However, with unions between gay couples, marriage is not the only thing out there. Marriage has prerequisites: in this case having a man and a woman. Gay couples just don't meet that, and to deny them the union of marriage because they don't meet that is not an infringement of their rights. Like the example of Boy and Girl Scouts. A boy cannot join girl scouts, because he is not a girl, thus he doesn't meet the requirements. Same with vice versa. This restriction is not infriging on anyone's rights.
It's possible to have another union, that straight couples don't meet the prerequisites, but legally, the standing will be the same. Gays can get their equal union, while leaving the definition of marriage alone.
If two gay people want to be together, fine, go for it. I can't stop them. Just leave the definition of marriage alone.
-
The government has already redefined marriage, its not just a civil union or something sacred anymore.
I suspect gays wouldn't care much for being wed if marriage didn't carry with it some extra bonuses the government hands out... taxes for instance.
Its ironic that people keep saying the government shouldn't be getting involved in marriage and redefining it, when its already been happening for quite some time.
-SW
-
So after perverting the word 'Gay' homosexuals now want to destroy the institution of Marriage? What next..?
Just ignore me, I must be filled with 'Hate'.
-
I say remove all preference for being "married" from our society. No tax breaks, no entitlement breaks of any kind, no "free" ;) health care for spouse and child.
Then let anyone who wants to get married be married. I sure don't give a fig.
But I bet fewer folks see the need to get married in that event.
-
Too late, the government already destroyed marriage.
Whats so religious about a man and a women going down to the state marriage performer, obtaining a marriage license and then recieving a marriage certificate?
The religious, or holy, aspect is where?
-SW
-
Originally posted by Thud
Massachusetts leads the way (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/16/rights.gay.marriage.reut/index.html)
.
You're a fudgepacker too Thud? cool! Gay pride man! :D
-
*sniff* turns up nose, swims away
-
Originally posted by Toad
I say remove all preference for being "married" from our society. No tax breaks, no entitlement breaks of any kind, no "free" ;) health care for spouse and child.
Then let anyone who wants to get married be married. I sure don't give a fig.
But I bet fewer folks see the need to get married in that event.
Now there's an idea I can get behind...err, so to speak. ;)
-
Originally posted by Otto
So after perverting the word 'Gay' homosexuals now want to destroy the institution of Marriage? What next..?
According to Divorce Magazine (http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml):
State with the lowest divorce rate: (1997) Massachusetts. Rate per 1,000 population: 2.4
Percentage of population that is married: 59% (down from 62% in 1990, 72% in 1970)
Percentage of population that is divorced: 10% (up from 8% in 1990, 6% in 1980)
We're doing a fine job destroying "the instution" even without worrying about homosexuals. In any case, I can't figure out why anyone thinks it's something "we" need to preserve. If you want to get married, do so. If you would rather not, do not. To each his own.
-
Originally posted by storch
*sniff* turns up nose, swims away
lol :D
-
Im failing to see how homosexuality = modern.
Call me old fashioned, but I like the plumbing to match up as nature intended.
-
Homosexuality isn't a modern thing (we could drag in the old greeks and romans and so on) but, accepting it as something that everybody has to decide for him/herselve and not interfere with that decision, is.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Homosexuality isn't a modern thing (we could drag in the old greeks and romans and so on) but, accepting it as something that everybody has to decide for him/herselve and not interfere with that decision, is.
exactly, as it is in most states (without gay marriage) you can do that now. gays have been having 'weddings' for quite a while, all they have to do is find a church that will do it, or really anybody, it's just a ceremony. then they get a contract for a domestic partnership.
what a law recognizing gay marriages does is removes the option to not except it as a true marriage from everyone else.
once these marriages are authorized by the state then you can be sued if you refuse to recognize this marriage.
it's not about being tolerant of those involved in immoral behavior, most of us have been doing that for awhile. it's now going the next step and saying we (as a society) have to give our 'OK' and sign off on the immoral behavior itself.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
it's not about being tolerant of those involved in immoral behavior, most of us have been doing that for awhile. it's now going the next step and saying we (as a society) have to give our 'OK' and sign off on the immoral behavior itself.
Same arguement could be made about inter-racial marriages.
-
Captain, your post very comprehensively sums up the problem: you may find it immoral, then don't do it yourself.
You won't limit yourself to that though, you are actively trying to restrain the homosexuals from getting an equal treatment (no pun intended)and that is the essence of the problem.
You claim that in practice you are all very tolerant but still you try to create barriers between them and you in terms of rights and recognition, only to express that you believe their ways are immoral. If people like you for once minded their own business and stopped invading and trying to shape other people's lives according to their own outdated puritan beliefs, the whole issue would be non-existent...
-
TOB... will you marry me? (http://www.lucyworks.com/mainpage/mainpage/heart.gif)
-
I will tell it to Ecke unfaithfull bastard :D
-
You had me at hello, you cute wittle fwenchie you.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
exactly, as it is in most states (without gay marriage) you can do that now. gays have been having 'weddings' for quite a while, all they have to do is find a church that will do it, or really anybody, it's just a ceremony. then they get a contract for a domestic partnership.
what a law recognizing gay marriages does is removes the option to not except it as a true marriage from everyone else.
once these marriages are authorized by the state then you can be sued if you refuse to recognize this marriage.
it's not about being tolerant of those involved in immoral behavior, most of us have been doing that for awhile. it's now going the next step and saying we (as a society) have to give our 'OK' and sign off on the immoral behavior itself.
I don't suppose it ever occured to you that not everyone shares your opinion of what's immoral and what's not? It's about the right for them to choose their partner, make a committment, and have it recognized under law just like any other civil marriage. And if you run a business, then yeah, you'd be up watermelon creek if you chose to pick and choose which marriages to recognize. This has nothing to do with your morality, your church, or your god. Not everything that you or I disapprove of is illegal, that's just one of the nicer realities of living in the United States.
I think this whole argument is moot though. Once it hits the supreme court, I'm sure it'll be settled one way or the other...and I believe that denying the civil marriage to a gay couple will be deemed unconstitutional. At that point it won't matter what laws the moral crusaders have passed. But, we'll just have to wait and see for that one.
-
Originally posted by SOB
You had me at hello, you cute wittle fwenchie you.
:rofl :rofl :aok :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
I say remove all preference for being "married" from our society. No tax breaks, no entitlement breaks of any kind, no "free" ;) health care for spouse and child.Then let anyone who wants to get married be married. I sure don't give a fig.But I bet fewer folks see the need to get married in that event.
I think if you are married w/o children you get screwed on taxes, don't quote me on that though. The benefit would be one spouse being entitled to health and death benefits of the other. I believe gays have this in a civil union, so I do not see why they need marriage, but live and let live I guess. But I find it funny that those who do not want government in their lives sure want it when it fits their needs.
-
(http://www.mtgayhealth.org/ssi/images/top-photo-embrace-home.jpg)
does this mean Thud will live to see the day he can live with his sheep, legally?
-
Originally posted by SOB
you'd be up watermelon creek if you ....
let's not bring yours/their sexual preference into this please ... :rofl
-
Thud, you could also bring up the fact that Greek and Roman societies collapsed once homosexuality was accepted.
But I bet you'd call it coincidence.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Thud, you could also bring up the fact that Greek and Roman societies collapsed once homosexuality was accepted.
But I bet you'd call it coincidence.
?????
at the fall of the roman empire homosexuality was a crime ...
And I guess according to your post the barbare had no influence ?
-
Being gay is no more immoral than being left handed.
What the heck are you guys worried about... really?
-
One of my friends is having bad homophobia; He told he would kick his son out from home if he would find out kid is gay. Sad thing is I did believe every word he said.
-
Your thread title is a bit misleading. There are some four countries, and three provinces in Canada which recognize "gay marriage".
So rather than catching up, it's more like leading.
-
I don't believe Homosexualty is Immoral and I have a few 'gay' friends. (Maybe more that I don't know about)
What I don't agree with is that minorities in a society are more important than the majority. It's not necessary to pander to every group that shouts 'Victim' the loudest when their small wants clash with the majority view of what our 'culture' is.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Being gay is no more immoral than being left handed.
What the heck are you guys worried about... really?
*sniffs* Ok, I'll bite.
Are you saying that humans can't control their sexual urges?
Do you believe in the existance of a "gay" gene?
Is homosexuality natural?
I don't care what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.
Social experimentation on any level at the expense of us all however does concern me.
This latest folly from a State and region that has consistently brought us most of whats currently wrong in America comes as no surprise. I believe this unmitigated Bull from Massachusetts will be a good thing.
Perhaps this event will have a galvanizing effect on the middle of the road folks. Maybe the nation will deliver a clear mandate to the President. Then we either pull back from the edge of the abyss or plunge headlong into a catastrophic tomorrow. In any event the first Tuesday in November of 2004 will be a critical, pivotal day for The United States of America.
What an exciting time to be alive, a battle for the soul of America.
-
Originally posted by Otto
I don't believe Homosexualty is Immoral and I have a few 'gay' friends. (Maybe more that I don't know about)
What I don't agree with is that minorities in a society are more important than the majority. It's not necessary to pander to every group that shouts 'Victim' the loudest when their small wants clash with the majority view of what our 'culture' is.
I'm not sure you thought that post through.
There was a time when interracial marriage was abhored by the majority of Americans. Should it have been illegal?
"Small Wants" - How small would it be to you if someone told you that you couldn't marry your wife?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Being gay is no more immoral than being left handed.
What the heck are you guys worried about... really?
Yeah after all Bill Clinton was left handed:aok
-
Originally posted by storch
*sniffs* Ok, I'll bite.
Are you saying that humans can't control their sexual urges?
Do you believe in the existance of a "gay" gene?
Is homosexuality natural?
I don't care what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.
Social experimentation on any level at the expense of us all however does concern me.
This latest folly from a State and region that has consistently brought us most of whats currently wrong in America comes as no surprise. I believe this unmitigated Bull from Massachusetts will be a good thing.
Perhaps this event will have a galvanizing effect on the middle of the road folks. Maybe the nation will deliver a clear mandate to the President. Then we either pull back from the edge of the abyss or plunge headlong into a catastrophic tomorrow. In any event the first Tuesday in November of 2004 will be a critical, pivotal day for The United States of America.
What an exciting time to be alive, a battle for the soul of America.
I believe that there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that homosexuality is indeed "natural". From studies of homosexual bonding in animals to descriptions of the improved ability to pass on the family genes through assitance by (gay) family members in rearing and providing for the young. You can feel free to look it up for yourself.
Still waiting for someone to post what scares them. Try to do it without the slippery slope to goat marriage though. that's just silly.
-
What's the problem? It has always been legal for gay people to get married.
Just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
In the words of govoner Schwartnegger "I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
-
Im not particularly for it as it seems un natural.
But in the end my feeling is
Do what the hell you want. Just leave me the hell alone and dont flaunt it in my or my childrens faces lest I beat your head in with a 2x4
-
MT,
I thought I was clear.
I'm not scared per se. Concerned though yes. You wouldn't understand because of the broad chasm that separates our world views.
Not wanting to belabor the point I thought it might be prudent to leave well 'nuff alone. But since you insist.
What I believe will occur is that at some point God will either have to deal with our national sin on a national level or otherwise be forced to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
If you will take an open minded look at at the archeological evidence you will see that Sodom and Gomorrah have been found in shallow water, under the dead sea (fitting locale) brimstone and all.
On a side note. have you flame tested your asbestos underware? you should. you're gonna need'm
No offense intended
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I believe that there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that homosexuality is indeed "natural
Well you find a way for two men to create a child from having sex together then I will agree with ya there MT.
Till then I will always call It for what It Is !
A lifestyle choice .
-
If you are thinking of marriage as a religious institution or combined state.religious institution then by current standards it needs to be between men and women only.
If you are thinking that marrige is a state sponsored institution only and that it should be rewarded with tax benifiets or other benifiets because raising a family is in the best interest of the state then it should be between a man and a woman... even tho it is possible for a man and a woman to be married and not have children and it is possible for a gay couple to adopt... it is far more likely that the families will consist of a married man and woman... enough so that if you are going to subsidize families (if you think the family is important) you should reward only unions between men and women... the resources only go so far.. you need to maximize the good (if there is good in family).
If, on the other hand you believe that marrige is simply a commitment to share life and goods... A legal contract.... And, you do not wish to bestow any tax breaks or extort any money for it from the rest of the populace... then, there is no reason to not allow state sponsored contracts. This would mean that No marriage would get any benifiet from the rest of us... no health care for spouses unless it was paid for... no tax break for couples etc.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://www.mtgayhealth.org/ssi/images/top-photo-embrace-home.jpg)
does this mean Thud will live to see the day he can live with his sheep, legally?
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH*
(http://www.daniellesplace.com/images/sheepshakingpic.jpg)
*(Free translation)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Thud, you could also bring up the fact that Greek and Roman societies collapsed once homosexuality was accepted.
But I bet you'd call it coincidence.
You could also argue that once the Christian faith became more ubiquitous in Rome, the empire fell...
-
Originally posted by myelo
What's the problem? It has always been legal for gay people to get married.
Just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
In the words of govoner Schwartnegger "I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
The 'man' 'woman' thing seems important for the anti-crowd.
Perhaps someone would like to give criteria to define who is a man and who is a woman ?
To aid Bush with his constitutional amendment if nothing else.
(and ask yourself if you are *really* sure you will pass whatever criteria you come up with for the gender you believe you belong too):confused: :eek:
-
Originally posted by txmx
Well you find a way for two men to create a child from having sex together then I will agree with ya there MT.
Till then I will always call It for what It Is !
A lifestyle choice .
So you only have sex to make babies? Bummer for you.
-
And some people, mt, don't even know that:
Childless couple ignorant of sex
A COUPLE WHO desperately wanted a child after eight years of marriage went to a fertility clinic where they were told: 'You must have sex to have a baby.'
We are not talking retarded people here, but a couple who were brought up in a religious environment
The deeply religious couple, aged 30 and 36, had no fertility problems. But when asked how often they were having sex, they looked blank.
Doctors subjected them to a series of examinations and found they were both apparently fertile, and should have had no trouble conceiving.
A clinic spokesman said: 'When we asked them how often they had had sex, they looked blank, and said: "What do you mean?"
'We are not talking retarded people here, but a couple who were brought up in a religious environment who were simply unaware, after eight years of marriage, of the physical requirements necessary to procreate.'
The 30-year-old wife and her 36-year-old husband are now being given sex therapy lessons while the university clinic undertakes a study to try to find out if there are many other couple with a similar lack of sex education.
Ravs
-
Naaaaaaah Ravs, impossible lol
-
rav
if you believe that story, see me at low tide - I have some land to sell ya
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Thud, you could also bring up the fact that Greek and Roman societies collapsed once homosexuality was accepted.
But I bet you'd call it coincidence.
Wow, there are people this dumb that have access to the internet?
-
NM
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Naaaaaaah Ravs, impossible lol
Anyone that can't figure it out shouldn't be breeding.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://www.mtgayhealth.org/ssi/images/top-photo-embrace-home.jpg)
does this mean Thud will live to see the day he can live with his sheep, legally?
Kinda interesting how the leading homophobe on this thread finds a picture of two men on the internet (or his bookmark) , and posts it...and tries to divert attention onto someone else w/o truly knowing that person's sexual orientation.
Moreover, he makes an even more sinister sexual reference by suggesting bestiality, :aok yet another attempt to divert attention away from Self..and towards Other..
You know, much of this passive anger on display might be a ruse, just a defense mechanism used in an attempt to conceal one's fear of some unresolved issues...this is all rather fascinating...
-
dang Red tail you figured me out!
busy tonite? wanna know how you got ur handle - ya brute .. :)
-
Homosexuality became a common practice for men in greece and rome just before they fell. Once they were commonly accepted, the empires "Happened" to collapse.
You might call that a coincidence, I call it an act of god...
-
Someone pull that lazersailor git out of the Spanish inquisition era, please.
"act of god" lol
-
Originally posted by Eagler
dang Red tail you figured me out!
busy tonite? wanna know how you got ur handle - ya brute .. :)
hehe...Sorry, my fiance doesn't take kindly to sharing, besides, you're too much man for me. Plus, both she and her brother, and father have a formidible firearms collection. But, thanks for the compliment! :rofl
However, since you asked about my handle...
Red Tail = The nick name (abridged) for the Tuskegee Airmen (Red Tailed Angels) Also, for the Red Tail Project, based here in St. Paul, Minnesota, that I'm a supporter of. Their P51C is touring
http://www.redtail.org
444= the 444th Air Mafia, that I joined just before AW went belly up.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
let's not bring yours/their sexual preference into this please ... :rofl
LOL! That was funny, however, if you're gonna post pics of homosexuals in the future, post pics of hot lesbians, not dudes. Unless that's something you're into. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nancy.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Homosexuality became a common practice for men in greece and rome just before they fell. Once they were commonly accepted, the empires "Happened" to collapse.
You might call that a coincidence, I call it an act of god...
Brief history lesson for the ignorant. Homosexuality became common practice early on in the greek and roman empires. Roman empire converted to christiananity over 100 years before its fall. Christians that ruled the empire in its last days killed pagans. Rome fell to pagans to the north who promptly slaughtered all the christians. I call it an act of Odin.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Kinda interesting how the leading homophobe on this thread...
Does this mean we can start calling people that dont like tobacco "smokerphobes?"
-
Nah, that'd be a tobaccophobe. You'd have to hate the smokers to be a smokerphobe.
-
Ok, just checking. Ill explain that to the next near dead who asks me to put out a cigarette right before I label him a bigot.
-
But perhaps that person will just be a smoke-o-phobe. He may not hate you, just the result from you burning/smoking a cigarette. Damn, this is getting complicated.
-
So if you hate BDSM and smoking you'd be a ropesmokerphobe?
-
And if you were gay and hated BDSM and smoking you'd be a homoropesmokerphobe.
This is begining to sound like a hydrocarbon compound!
Ravs
-
RedTail
a co-workers uncle flew with the Tuskegee back when they had P47's. Can't remeber his name but he had two kills b4 he was shot down and killed. He has a P51 redtail. Do you know where I can find the P47 they flew or have a picture of one/link?
thanks
-
Originally posted by SOB
LOL! That was funny, however, if you're gonna post pics of homosexuals in the future, post pics of hot lesbians, not dudes. Unless that's something you're into. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nancy.
LOL
Hot? they are only in the movies - any "real" ones I've seen can pass for short ugly men with a bad haircut in need of Kramers manzier
-
I never said they had to be real...and that goes for their boobs as well.
-
Classic ignorant statement that pretty much summarizes this thread and all other similar ones:
I am not a homophobe, I just believe homosexuality is immoral
For those that believe that isn't contradictory:
Definition: "Homophobia: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality."
-
actually phobias are unreasonable fears. a homophobe would be someone who has unreasonable fear of homosexuals.
I'm not afraid of them or the disgusting things they do. however, like the majority of people in this state, in this country, and on this planet, I homosexual acts immoral.
I find guys who cheat on their wife immoral also, doesn't mean I have some sort of phobia.
there are plenty of people that label fits, but it gets thrown around way too often. it's a common ploy, when someone disagrees with you group them together, put a label on 'm, and do your best to make sure the lable paints them as unreasonable.
btw- I find it interesting that people can find a few examples of defective animals and use this as 'proof' that the same defects in humans isn't a defect at all.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Homosexuality became a common practice for men in greece and rome just before they fell. Once they were commonly accepted, the empires "Happened" to collapse.
You might call that a coincidence, I call it an act of god...
Yep it's a act of god ,it happen that the collapse of Rome followed the convertion of Constantin and the emergence of christianism as the main religion in the empire
So is it christianism or homosexuality ?
Try get your fact straight and stop fantasize please.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Classic ignorant statement that pretty much summarizes this thread and all other similar ones:
For those that believe that isn't contradictory:
Definition: "Homophobia: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality."
Just because y'all changed the meaning of the word doesnt make it applicable here.
Remember when the word "gay" had nothing to do with sticking poles in the wrong holes?
Another five, six years and we wont even be able to say "gay" without being called 'ignorant' as you say. By that time, Im sure youll have conjured up another word - less offensive to the sensitive chaps of the rectal router persuasion, of course. Probably something along the lines of "hertosexuality challenged" or "vaginaphobe" perhaps.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Classic ignorant statement that pretty much summarizes this thread and all other similar ones:
For those that believe that isn't contradictory:
Definition: "Homophobia: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality."
Here we go again. why don't you avant gard European social experimenters keep messing up your homes and keep your opinions there as well? We are quite happy in America with our morals and values. We have in this case four judicial activists legislating from the bench. The people have spoken on this issue and America is overwhelming against homosexual marriage. This imbecillic decision in Massachusetts will most likely be the catalyst for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
The profound consequences of this incredibly stupid act go far beyond mere homosexuality as we will see in the coming months. I predict plural marriages as in 3 men and 3 women or any combination thereof. How about man and sheep? or Men and underaged boys? where do you draw the line?
It's not over, It's not even beginning. But it will soon enough.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
actually phobias are unreasonable fears. a homophobe would be someone who has unreasonable fear of homosexuals.
I'm not afraid of them or the disgusting things they do. however, like the majority of people in this state, in this country, and on this planet, I homosexual acts immoral.
I find guys who cheat on their wife immoral also, doesn't mean I have some sort of phobia.
there are plenty of people that label fits, but it gets thrown around way too often. it's a common ploy, when someone disagrees with you group them together, put a label on 'm, and do your best to make sure the lable paints them as unreasonable.
btw- I find it interesting that people can find a few examples of defective animals and use this as 'proof' that the same defects in humans isn't a defect at all.
In fact you do unreasonably fear homosexuals, you are afraid that they will become accepted as defacto normal and you no longer can label them as immoral and see that prejudice affirmed by them being less-privileged by law.
And if you have the same mindset that many of the 'gay-opposers' on this BBS have than you're also afraid that they might teach your children, influence your neighbourhood by their presence, visit your church and generally invade your life by being present in your environment.
Indeed a phobia...
-
Ah, to our old narrowminded bible-thumper:
Storch, you hungry?
(http://www.tidespoint.com/food/puritan.jpg)
.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Being gay is no more immoral than being left handed.
What the heck are you guys worried about... really?
If everyone was left handed, the human race would still continue.
I believe homos (my bad for saying homo?) are immoral, but I don't dislike them as people. I don't judge anyone.
-
I don't understand this Nuke.
How can you call someone 'immoral' if they have no bearing on your life?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Still waiting for someone to post what scares them. Try to do it without the slippery slope to goat marriage though. that's just silly.
"Still waiting for someone to post what scares them, as long as it meets the standards I define."
How can you call someone 'immoral' if they have no bearing on your life?
Anything that happens in my community has a bearing on my life.
-
Thud, you can't define words to definitions that are in your advantage.
But anyway, Nuke summed it up very well as did many other people in this post.
We don't give two *****s to casablanca what 2 grown adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. That's their business and their business alone.
However, most of us see Homosexuality as immoral. We see the things they do in privacy as wrong, but it's still their private life that they are allowed to live.
Now they are coming out and trying to make their lifestyle as acceptable in Society. By allowing this to happen, it is like us (as people who see homosexuality as immoral) saying that Homosexuality is fine and completely moral.
We cannot allow the sexual choices of a few people to corrupt the morals of this christian society we have fought and died for.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
We cannot allow the sexual choices of a few people to corrupt the morals of this christian society we have fought and died for.
You truly are lost. Few fought for religion, the majority fought for freedom.
Give up with your education, it ain't helping one bit.
-SW
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
We cannot allow the sexual choices of a few people to corrupt the morals of this christian society we have fought and died for.
It's sad that an American would think such things. Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?
-
We cannot allow the sexual choices of a few people to corrupt the morals of this christian society we have fought and died for.
That's what Hitler said.
Or was it the Klan?
-
lasersailer...what do other people's sexual choices have to do with you?
What on earth gives you the right to say whether they want to keep it 'in the closet' or not? Who are you to make these determinations for other people's happiness?
live and let live means giving people their freedoms and hoping that in doing that, you are allowed a few of your own.
Ravs
-
I'd call you guys illiterate, but the fact that you replied proves that you are illiterate only when you want.
No where did I say that all homosexuals should be killed, nor should homosexuality be banned much like Hitler did with Judaism.
America is built off of a christian society. Not a Hindu caste system. Not a moslem, mayan or ancient roman society. Christian. Incase you haven't noticed, the rules here are based off of christian rules.
Homosexuals are currently trying to get society to accept them. By allowing society to accept what they do it's like saying you accept what they do. It's like saying that you agree that Homosexuality is a moral act just like heterosexuality is.
This is what we are fighting against. We are fighting against society saying that Homosexuality is a completely moral and right act 2 grown people can do.
-
I love the "destroying the institution of marriage" line.
As if the last two generations haven't been doing their best to do just that. Most folks against this are defending an ideal that they themselves have, in all probablility, trampled upon themselves.
-
Ive known a homo or two, danced with a lesbian or three. yeah really nice people, by and large, but the one thing that always made me chuckle was that they actually thought being homosexual was "normal".
Ive got news for the gays. The blueprint does not make allowances for vaginal to vaginal copulation. The blueprint does not allow for noodle to noodle procreation.
Its really sorta of sad. Poor folks.
I wish them all the happiness in the world. If they have to be married to feel equal or adequate then let the poor souls be married. I could care less, but they will never be "normal" by the standard of the cosmic engineering drawing and specifications.
Homosexuallity is deviant and abnormal, even when dogs do it.
Still, love...peace. Have at it and get your rocks OFF!
-
Kinda like blamin' retarded kids for being retarded.
Or geniuses for being geniuses.
It's naturally occuring, no matter what "normal" is.... however significant it really is that something's "normal" (numerically superior).
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
America is built off of a christian society. Not a Hindu caste system. Not a moslem, mayan or ancient roman society. Christian. Incase you haven't noticed, the rules here are based off of christian rules.
Funny, the Founders neglected to mention that we should follow christian tradition above all else.
I wonder what they were thinking?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
America is built off of a christian society. Not a Hindu caste system. Not a moslem, mayan or ancient roman society. Christian. Incase you haven't noticed, the rules here are based off of christian rules.
Ding! Wrong. America was and is built on freedoms, being founded by people who believe in God does not make a religious foundation. In fact, they wrote something in the constitution to the contrary...
-SW
-
yes wulf Im sure if the founders could fathom an america run by athiests and homosexuals they would jump up and down and clap with glee.
bluhh...
-
Kinda like blamin' retarded kids for being retarded.
Or geniuses for being geniuses.
====
And this relates to homosuxuality being deviant and abnormal how?
Back to the end of the line nash.
-
If atheists and gays actually were to run the country (read: be voted in by a majority of Americans), then they'd be happy. It would prove beyond any measure of a doubt that the system they concocted works.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Kinda like blamin' retarded kids for being retarded.
Or geniuses for being geniuses.
====
And this relates to homosuxuality being deviant and abnormal how?
Back to the end of the line nash.
If I wanted to teach kindergarten I would have gotten a liberal arts degree. Figure it out for yourself.
-
wrong answer. you lose. take your lumps and go pout in private please.
-
Yeager is playing word games, but he's right. It isn't statistically normal, and it is a statistical deviation.
But this doesn't mean it's wrong or unnatural. For example left handed people are deviants and abnormal.
-
and so are retarded kids and geniuses.
My point is zactly that. It aint unnatural no matter how small the number.
So he's goofin' on people unlike him. Like that's a rare preocupation for some people.
-
So now we should correctly equate being left handed to being homosexual.
Nash, you think the founders would be pleased with godless deviants running the show as it would prove their little joke actually worked....man..I guess. Ill just let it go as an example of each having their own opinion, as Im sure you will.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
This is what we are fighting against. We are fighting against society saying that Homosexuality is a completely moral and right act 2 grown people can do.
You're actually fighting against it? You're even more disgusting than I thought you to be. And that is indeed an unlikely feat.
Never mind, why do you think 'god' created so many degrees of man and women, there are women that even scare me when they flex their biceps and there are men who resemble a fragile pre-puberty schoolgirl. And that is just the outside, as with the physical appearance there is a wide array of emotional and mental orientations present among people. Is it really that surprising that some lean towards a sexual preference initially attributed to the other sex? The explanation that there are men and women and nothing in between is not only simplified but also strikingly naive, as is the assumption that sexual preference would be uniform if it weren't for 'lifestyle choices', there are men who like big, strong women and there are who prefer petite, feminine types and many, many who have a preference in the range between and around these two extremes. That is all commonly accepted, even by religious fanatics as yourself, it is just as obvious that in some cases the sexual preference will be positioned within or just after the grey area that separates the two sexes.
Instead those ignorantly clinging to religion and the comforting moral superiority that it offers them, choose to believe it is a lifestyle choice. Of all the ridiculous statements... It once more proves that America (or any nation) shouldn't be a christian nation, it should be a democracy, separated from the sick beliefs cherished by the clergy and their clueless followers.
It makes me wonder sometimes, where are the times that believing in something meant that people were compassionate, helpful and good to their fellow men. Nowadays religion seems only to be about forcing your beliefs upon others and shaping society as much as you can with total disregard for others, egocentrism seems the key-word for christians these days and all they seem to preach is hate. I certainly hope that someone will stop the christians, the muslims and all others acting so destructively on so many levels in the name of their fictious gods before they ***** up the world more than they have right now.
BTW, my definition of homophobia (yes, without the 'unreasonable') was quoted directly from a dictionary, you may describe where I changed it to fit my purposes.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
So now we should correctly equate being left handed to being homosexual.
Well you set the criteria. Do you think left handedness is normal? If so, why is left handness normal and homosexuality not?
-
Originally posted by Thud
and there are men who resemble a fragile pre-puberty .
And then there is a friend of mine who is 6'6" and 285lbs and you would never guess he was gay!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's sad that an American would think such things. Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?
the first amendment allows for freedom of speech and expression. where does it allow for homosexual behavior in the public arena? we confuse liberty with libertinism.
-
Thud, be a gem and reach down there and grab the soap will ya? LOL
its all good and normal right?
I think the habitants of Sodom and Gomorrah thought the same thing - right before they were vaporized ... (Genesis 13: 13).
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I think the habitants of Sodom and Gomorrah thought the same thing - right before they were vaporized ... (Genesis 13: 13).
POOF!!*
Disclaimer: *(sound of blasphemous sinner being vaporized. No pun intended towards those commonly referred to as poofs)
-
I have no problem with gay men so long as I don't have to look at it. the human nature is to emphasize. If you see a couple you put yourself in the situation. It is completely natural for a heterosexual man to feel queasy when seeing gay displays of affection between two men (if yu are a male) and not be too upset by seeing two women together..
Besides that tho.. there is a financial burden to gay marriage. It costs us money... if they get tax breaks or health care then we pay for it. I would not be against gay marriage if it did not entail any financial giveaways.
If gays married and had the same legal contract as everyone else then courts would have a more difficult time in discriminating against men in heterosexual divorces tho....
lazs
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no problem with gay men so long as I don't have to look at it. the human nature is to emphasize. If you see a couple you put yourself in the situation. It is completely natural for a heterosexual man to feel queasy when seeing gay displays of affection between two men (if yu are a male) and not be too upset by seeing two women together.. [QUOTE/]
Whenever we perform an installation in the beach communities we see very many "displays of affection" between homosexuals in public. This has been common for two decades in Miami/Ft. Lauderdale. I would not take my children to the public beaches when they were young because of this. I did not want to get into any long explainations with small children who had no need to have these "displays" being performed in their presence. This is another example of a small minority of deviants imposing their will against a great majority. We are blessed because we could afford boats and my parents owned a nice vacation Home in the Florida Keys. This allowed us to skirt the issue as it were. What about those less fortunate?
Besides that tho.. there is a financial burden to gay marriage. It costs us money... if they get tax breaks or health care then we pay for it. I would not be against gay marriage if it did not entail any financial giveaways.
If gays married and had the same legal contract as everyone else then courts would have a more difficult time in discriminating against men in heterosexual divorces tho....
lazs
lazs
If we think our healthcare system is messed up now wait until this thing builds up momentum and you Adam and Steve wanting spousal coverage from Adam's insurance at work.
-
That is my point. but.. in some cases your healthcare is part of a "package" as is mine. I have negotiated for a certain dollar amount to be used for healthcare. since I am single I can elect to put the unused portion into a tax deffered retirement plan.
As for suits... how would a judge or jury be able to discriminate against the man in a same sex marrige during a divorce? They would not... I believe this would set a long overdue precident and males would be treated more fairly in male/female marriages.
As for taxes.. I am willing to subsiddize the raising of children a lot more than I am willing to subsidize cohabitation of any type. You should get a tax break for raising children.
lazs
-
Actually, I'm not very much religious at all. I don't go to church, I don't belong to any religion. I actually don't believe in any religion that says you'll go to hell for not being a member.
However, I easily acknowlege that the american society is a christian society. Christian rules dominated writing the declaration and constitution. No matter what you say, this is history. You can't change this fact.
But a lot of the argument comes down to whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not. I believe it is, which is part of the reason why it's immoral.
Being retarded or a genius is not a choice and you are born with it. (Unless you decided to take a 2x4 to your head and become the former.)
-
with the tax system we have now (higher percentage the more you make) I always thought a fair system for children would be to look at the money as divided into the number of people it suports.
for example, I make about 55k and suport 5 people on that money. so tax at the 11k per year % rate.
it seems like they over complicate the system just so acountants can find work.
-
To this thread I offer the immortal words of my oldest granddaughter when she was four, "who cares?"
:D
-
Choice or not it comes down to this.
If we are going to recognize the union of 2 people for the purpose of taxation, inheritance, hospital visitation etc... then it is immoral and IMHO illegal to discriminate against those unions based on sex.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no problem with gay men so long as I don't have to look at it. the human nature is to emphasize. If you see a couple you put yourself in the situation. It is completely natural for a heterosexual man to feel queasy when seeing gay displays of affection between two men (if yu are a male) and not be too upset by seeing two women together..
Besides that tho.. there is a financial burden to gay marriage. It costs us money... if they get tax breaks or health care then we pay for it. I would not be against gay marriage if it did not entail any financial giveaways.
If gays married and had the same legal contract as everyone else then courts would have a more difficult time in discriminating against men in heterosexual divorces tho....
lazs
lazs
They pay for your marriage privileges, you don't seem to object to that...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Choice or not it comes down to this.
If we are going to recognize the union of 2 people for the purpose of taxation, inheritance, hospital visitation etc... then it is immoral and IMHO illegal to discriminate against those unions based on sex.
There I agree with you. And I as most Americans would be willing to allow a type of legal civil union for those purposes. However the foundation of human society is the family. The partnership between one man, one woman and their progeny. It should remain so. If they legally adopt a child then by all means that child should be included.
Don't allow Adam and Steve to be married allow them equal treatment under law.
-
If being modern means a visit from the Keister Bunny, just call me Kronk the Neanderthal.
-
Originally posted by storch
There I agree with you. And I as most Americans would be willing to allow a type of legal civil union for those purposes. However the foundation of human society is the family. The partnership between one man, one woman and their progeny. It should remain so. If they legally adopt a child then by all means that child should be included.
Don't allow Adam and Steve to be married allow them equal treatment under law.
Hmmm, separate but equal. That sounds like a good idea.
-
gays dont want "seperate but equal" anything less than equal marriage is discrimination. Dont see how one can be discriminated against based on a sexual perversion but the godless liberal left has made sure of it.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Hmmm, separate but equal. That sounds like a good idea.
Homosexuals aren't a minority, they are a group of vocal deviants pining for broad socialacceptance which they will never have, except from the redicoulous extreme left.
-
MT and thud... it all depends on what you consider marriage to be.. If family is important... the raising of future Americans then that is what you/I are paying for.
It matters not if I agree or disagree but... paying for same sex marriage can have no benifiet to me whereas if children are raised it is of possible benifiet.
so we need to define what it is that we want out of marriage..
lazs
-
The real solution is to outlaw the civil recognition of religious sacraments.
All "couples" should be required to get a civil decree of union or whatever the heck you want to call it. We are just being hypocritical by endorsing religious marriage anyway.
Nothing stopping anyone from getting married in a church, you'll just need the civil contract to reap the civil benefits.
-
Agreed
-
There is a predominently gay town here in South Florida, it's called Wilton Manors. They have a place of worship there that advertises "love without judgement". This really struck me. It must be hard to be gay. Even now in our supposedly enlightened era homosexuality is not accepted by the majority of people. It never will be.
If had a son or daughter that was homosexual it would grieve me terribly. I wouldn't love them any less though. From that perspective I can empathaize. If an offspring of ours were to choose that life style and if they accepted my advise I would encourage them to keep it to themselves. It's no one's business what anyone does in their home. But it would no doubt be a very tough row to hoe, and all up hill.
Homosexuals may find "love without judgement" from their peers, parents and some friends but not likely from society in general.
While God in his word clearly condemns the practice of homosexuality, it is no different from any other sin. There can be redemption if one acknowleges the behavior as sinful and confesses it as such. Then with the power of the holy spirit perhaps that person could refrain from further sin. If that person were to fail, God is patient and forgiving. you can try again and again. God does not hate the person but the act, the sin as it were.
http://www.family.org is a nice site. I believe there is a link to another site for a ministry called worthy creations ministry. They help repentant homosexuals come out of that destructive lifestyle. There are many inspiring testimonies from former gay and lesbian people who have successfully come out of that lifestyle and have gone on to marry and have families of their own.
If you intend on flaming me for this post fire away. I posted this with no intention of offending anyone but merely to shed light upon the possibility of help to any who may be interested. There are concerned, caring people and resources dedicated to helping you.
-
Sounds like a viable solution, will it enjoy enough (political) support though?
-
Besides that tho.. there is a financial burden to gay marriage. It costs us money... if they get tax breaks or health care then we pay for it. I would not be against gay marriage if it did not entail any financial giveaways.
your always whining about to high taxes...so why dont you want anyone to receive tax breaks? or is it just because YOU wont be getting them that you dont want it? and your crying because "its unfairrrrrr" like a bloody socialist
-
Why worry about what some people do with each other? I don't care if some guy wants to marry a goat... I really don't. As long as I keep the mental image of two dudes playin hide-the-sausage out of my mind, I figure there's way too much important stuff to worry about.
Tumor
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Why worry about what some people do with each other? I don't care if some guy wants to marry a goat... I really don't. As long as I keep the mental image of two dudes playin hide-the-sausage out of my mind, I figure there's way too much important stuff to worry about.
Tumor
I feel the same way. but thats not the issue here.
we aren't arguing over allowing gays to be gay, or do whatever the hell they want to do to each other. it's not about policing other peoples bedrooms.
it's about legally forcing others to pretend that relationship based in immoral behavior is equal to a real marriage. they are already teaching these lies to kids in our schools. it's gone far enough, as it is even bringing up the fact that homosexuality is immoral is considered a hate-crime by some.
-
"Turn the other cheek" - works for me.
-SW
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I feel the same way. but thats not the issue here.
we aren't arguing over allowing gays to be gay, or do whatever the hell they want to do to each other. it's not about policing other peoples bedrooms.
it's about legally forcing others to pretend that relationship based in immoral behavior is equal to a real marriage. they are already teaching these lies to kids in our schools. it's gone far enough, as it is even bringing up the fact that homosexuality is immoral is considered a hate-crime by some.
Well, I guess the real question is: Why is homosexuality immoral? Ok, I don't think I'm an atheist or anything, I'm actually a fairly learned former christion (son-of-a-preacher type), but I've never seen some ultimate omnipitant being pop up and say otherwise. Animals do it (ok, well, they try. Heck my dog humps air even), but we have the ability to "think" in ways other than animals do. Whats the difference. Immoral Shimmoral... all subjective. I think Homosexuality is.... freakin weird. Immorally wrong? I dunno, and I dunno why it would be really.
I believe in letting people be who they are (within reason). Makes my life better and keeps my bloodpressure down. Aint worth the stress.
-
Is ghey=immoral from the bible? Is that the reason people here are calling it immoral?
-
Yep. I think it carried the penalty of death in the old testament (been a few years). Don't remember if the New Testament even commented on it, I'm sure someone here knows.
-
Most people would agree that there is a standard, or lowest common denominator of accepted beahvior, that western non religious based cultures adhere to. Without any specific published guide most people try to be polite and kind and to show a level of respect to others. As such most of us try not to be rude or disrespectful, to disrespect and break laws, to commit acts of un justified violance or to commit murder under most any circumstance. Without quoteing any religious text I believe this is a standard of morality.
-
Do unto others. I believe this is what you're trying to say.
I dunno where teh ghey enters this equation.
-
Trashing the institution of marriage, what's the divorce rate for heteros these days?
Most religions only seem to tolerate gays when they're subservient pedophiles, wassup with dat?
Why care or even stand in their way, won't they just ride the turbo train to hell and burn eternally beside Al Franken and the man with no face?
How many times have you mowed your lawn this year for me it's been threes times (excellent), freakin grubs it's war!
-
Holy watermelon Torque.... Creamo's got tough competition in you for the succinct/observant/hilarious mantle.
-
You got any more boobies Nash? Just wonderin.
-
Time for an avatard change... I hear ya....
-
Go ahead i just saved it.
-
me too hehe
-
nice tatas but put some hips on them beotches!
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
They are already teaching these lies to kids in our schools. it's gone far enough, as it is even bringing up the fact that homosexuality is immoral is considered a hate-crime by some.
And yet you claim to be anything but a homophobe. I predicted you'd make the statement about your children's education on the previous page, remember?
What would you like the teacher to answer if a child asks him/her about homosexuality?
And believing that homosexuality is immoral isn't a hate-crime itself, only naive, inhuman and misinformed. Trying to prevent them from gaining equal rights is a hate-crime, though.
-
MT... if there are "civil benifiets" handed out to married couples then they should go to couples that may do me some good as I am paying for these "benifiets"...
I can see no benifiet to anyone but the participants of gay marriage in their union. There is a possible benifiet of conventional marriage in that it possibly creates a family.
I have no interest in subsidizing gay marriage and they have no interest in getting married except to extort money from me.
I have limited interest in subsidizing conventional marriage but they extort limited funds from me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Thud
And yet you claim to be anything but a homophobe. I predicted you'd make the statement about your children's education on the previous page, remember?
What would you like the teacher to answer if a child asks him/her about homosexuality?
And believing that homosexuality is immoral isn't a hate-crime itself, only naive, inhuman and misinformed. Trying to prevent them from gaining equal rights is a hate-crime, though.
One thing I find entertaining about people that make statements like this. They are usually so certain of their own absolute correctness that they can't help but assume everyone with any intelligence will see the wisdom of their assertion. Therefore anyone that denies it's validity must be stupid.
Homosexuality, if not immoral, is at least a threat to the continuation of the human species. Why wouldn't the revulsion of something that could destroy us be deeply imbedded within us?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT... if there are "civil benifiets" handed out to married couples then they should go to couples that may do me some good as I am paying for these "benifiets"...
I can see no benifiet to anyone but the participants of gay marriage in their union. There is a possible benifiet of conventional marriage in that it possibly creates a family.
I have no interest in subsidizing gay marriage and they have no interest in getting married except to extort money from me.
I have limited interest in subsidizing conventional marriage but they extort limited funds from me.
lazs
Is there nothing more than urself and ur interests?
-
double post
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT... if there are "civil benifiets" handed out to married couples then they should go to couples that may do me some good as I am paying for these "benifiets"...
I can see no benifiet to anyone but the participants of gay marriage in their union. There is a possible benifiet of conventional marriage in that it possibly creates a family.
I have no interest in subsidizing gay marriage and they have no interest in getting married except to extort money from me.
I have limited interest in subsidizing conventional marriage but they extort limited funds from me.
lazs
It's not all about money. And I think you'll find that people actually pay a marriage penalty when it comes to taxes. So if it doesn't cost you anything, why not?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
One thing I find entertaining about people that make statements like this. They are usually so certain of their own absolute correctness that they can't help but assume everyone with any intelligence will see the wisdom of their assertion. Therefore anyone that denies it's validity must be stupid.
You formulated the statement above as if it is a brilliant find while it is actually kicking in a door that is already open to such an extent that even the proverbial hinges were removed ages ago. Of course I am convinced of myself being correct in this matter and the opponents completely wrong, otherwise I would never have posted such an outspoken post in the first place, DUH...
The whole thing is so obvious it almost hurts.
Homosexuality, if not immoral, is at least a threat to the continuation of the human species. Why wouldn't the revulsion of something that could destroy us be deeply imbedded within us?
According to your logic, I should find an infertile women or men completely repulsive as well. After all they do form a threat to human reproduction as much as homosexuals do. You might want to reconsider sharing your views with that childless couple down the street planning to adopt. You obviously don't want them to be able to marry either...
.
-
Originally posted by Thud
According to your logic, I should find an infertile women or men completely repulsive as well. After all they do form a threat to human reproduction as much as homosexuals do. You might want to reconsider sharing your views with that childless couple down the street planning to adopt. You obviously don't want them to be able to marry either...
.
I never said it wasn't obvious, only entertaining.
So, you're equating homosexuality with infertility? No one is in danger of being persuaded to become or exercise their infertility. You are making a big assumption that I don't want homosexuals to marry. Never said or implied that. I am saying that revulsion of homosexuality may be a species survival trait that many of us feel not because of prejudice based on ignorance but rather because it is essential to the propogation of our species.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So, you're equating homosexuality with infertility?
Not aware of the option to re-read your own posts?
FYI: you said that the revulsion against homosexuality could be attributed to them not being able to procreate, hence I said that according to that logic infertile heterosexuals should be just as repulsive. Your logic, not mine...
-
Originally posted by Thud
Not aware of the option to re-read your own posts?
FYI: you said that the revulsion against homosexuality could be attributed to them not being able to procreate, hence I said that according to that logic infertile heterosexuals should be just as repulsive. Your logic, not mine...
OK, let's discuss infertility then. If there were an identifying trait for those that are infertile then I suspect the infertile among us would have been bred out long ago. So yes, if the infertile were easily recognized as being different we would most likely have the same revulsion.
That was too quick of a response. Obviously you cannot "breed" out infertility.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
OK, let's discuss infertility then. If there were an identifying trait for those that are infertile then I suspect the infertile among us would have been bred out long ago. So yes, if the infertile were easily recognized as being different we would most likely have the same revulsion.
That was too quick of a response. Obviously you cannot "breed" out infertility.
NM, the point is clear. I think your argumentation is flawed because of the following:
1. If you would observe a given infertile couple in a certain social environment the odds are that many people know of their 'condition', thus making it an identifiable trait. Even if the majority of the others present in the environment in question would totally disaprove of homosexuality, it is totally unrealistic to expect that they will label our guineapig couple as repulsive. The most common reaction is one of sympathy, I think we'll agree on that.
2. Although not for the same reasons, couples childless by choice are in practice just as much a threat to the continuity of the human race as infertile and homosexual couples. I think that we don't have to argue for a second about the predominant lack of disgust you'd find for the first category anywhere.
-
There are physical attributes that attract opposite sexes. In most of us this uncontrollable attraction is built into us to ensure the survival of our species. If infertility were outwardly manifest (say as that by the member of the same sex) then the attraction would for most of us cease to exist. How do you explain the innate revulsion that so many of us feel towards homosexuality?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There are physical attributes that attract opposite sexes. In most of us this uncontrollable attraction is built into us to ensure the survival of our species.
Right, and so there must be a purpose for homosexuality. Some believe that it is to reduce the competion for mates within a family group. Homosexuals have a great place within a family as people with a genetic stake (say an uncle or aunt) so they would have a desire to contribute to betterment of it, but aren't direct sexual competitors.
How do you explain the innate revulsion that so many of us feel towards homosexuality?
Innate? My ass. I guess the Nazis revulsion for the Jews was innate as well. :rolleyes:
It's based on ignorance, biggotry, and stuipid book that tells you it's bad...so it must be.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How do you explain the innate revulsion that so many of us feel towards homosexuality?
Prejudice founed by ignorance combined with the assuring effect of being able to look down on someone, i.e. feel morally superior. Oldest thing in the book (of human psychology) actually
-
I knew your answers, see my earlier post. It is of course possible to go against your nature, hence homosexuality and the ridiculing of those that find it repugnant.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I never said it wasn't obvious, only entertaining.
So, you're equating homosexuality with infertility? No one is in danger of being persuaded to become or exercise their infertility. You are making a big assumption that I don't want homosexuals to marry. Never said or implied that. I am saying that revulsion of homosexuality may be a species survival trait that many of us feel not because of prejudice based on ignorance but rather because it is essential to the propogation of our species.
No one is being persuaded to become homosexual either. sheesh!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No one is being persuaded to become homosexual either. sheesh!
There are many that would refrain (and have in less tolerant times) from the practice of homosexuality if it were not being accepted as normal behavior.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I knew your answers, see my earlier post. It is of course possible to go against your nature, hence homosexuality and the ridiculing of those that find it repugnant.
All very well but in the meantime (in the posts between the one you refer to and this one) you have utterly failed to produce a single valid argument pointing towards another ground for being repulsed by gays other than the hardly flattering ones we posted. Does say something about your case, as it does about ours...
-
duedal... what are you talking about? It is not about me so much as it is about what is right and wrong.. and what is logical. If I, or society, sees a benifiet in raising families then we should extort less of their money from them. There is no benifiet to gay marriage for me or society so why bother to lessen their burden at my expense.
MT.. the marriage penalty imay or may not exist... it depends on your combined income levels. There is health care issues and insurance issues that would drive up my/societies costs.
Now... As I said... there is no point in talking about gay marriage until we decide what we want from the contract... The benifiets of marriage by the state should be spelled out and then society can decide which types of marrige they are willing to foot the bill for.
But... it is far more complex than merely a "moral" issue of not recognizing unions for moral purposes.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There are many that would refrain (and have in less tolerant times) from the practice of homosexuality if it were not being accepted as normal behavior.
Bull****.
They just hid it from the masses that would treat them like dirt, or worse.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bull****.
They just hid it from the masses that would treat them like dirt, or worse.
You are obviously an expert in this area as I am not. Since I really don't care if two men want to get married I'll bow out of this conversation.
Still, I'm wondering that if there were not homosexual activity would we still be facing an epidemic of AIDS killing possibly millions?
-
Originally posted by SOB
If you can't get beyond your primal urges, I feel sorry for you. I can't speak for everyone who feels same sex marriage should be legal, but I am repulsed by the thought of two dudes doing the nasty. However, I can get beyond that and understand that just because it's not for me, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
I don't feel sorry for you though, as I don't believe for a second that you can't get beyond your primal urges. You choose to dislike homosexuals and you choose to be against same sex marriage. That makes me think a little less of you, but I'm sure you're still a decent person.
When we all get beyond our primal urges our species will cease to exist within a generation. I've had homo friends, I am repulsed by homosexuality but not necessarily by the person.
OK, said I'd go, cyas.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Still, I'm wondering that if there were not homosexual activity would we still be facing an epidemic of AIDS killing possibly millions?
LOL, brilliant.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
When we all get beyond our primal urges our species will cease to exist within a generation. I've had homo friends, I am repulsed by homosexuality but not necessarily by the person.
OK, said I'd go, cyas.
Sorry, deleted this post...was at the end of page 4 when I replied and missed there was a page 5, so my post wasn't really in context anymore.
After reading further on page 5, I do understand what you're saying about being naturally repulsed by homosexual acts. While I've never seen it, I don't doubt I would be repulsed by it (well, unless it was women, I've seen these videos, umm, on the Intardnet, and these chicks were....err, umm, what was I saying?).
However, me being repulsed by two dudes doing the nasty doesn't make the act wrong or immoral. And it certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't have the option to choose their spouse and have their union legally recognized.
-
sometimes your gut instinct is telling you something that should really be understood and appreciated. If it is dusgusting to see and disgusting to imagine hearing-feeling-smelling-doing and just plain repulsive to the vast majority of properly functioning carbon units then perhaps that instinct is appropriate and should be honored by society as moral and appropiate expectation within the culture.
now HTAS GHEY!!!!!
-
I also think lutefisk is disgusting and the thought of watching someone eating it turns my stomach, but that doesn't mean I should shun Norwegians . . . does it?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Still, I'm wondering that if there were not homosexual activity would we still be facing an epidemic of AIDS killing possibly millions?
LOL, sure like to make a silent and gracious exit don't you? Make sure to weigh them after you catch 'em...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You are obviously an expert in this area as I am not. Since I really don't care if two men want to get married I'll bow out of this conversation.
Still, I'm wondering that if there were not homosexual activity would we still be facing an epidemic of AIDS killing possibly millions?
While choosing to ignore the first part of your post I will address the second. I think you will find that many more people in the world have been infected with HIV through heterosexual contact than through homosexual contact. Surprisingly enough, one of the safest groups in terms of HIV would be lesbians.
I guess this would mean that god only hates gay men and heterosexual africans.
-
(http://www.jeffwillet.com/group_hug.jpg)
GROUP HUG!!!
MT, THUD and SOB please keep ur hands above the waist ... LOL
-
Seems to be only one of us in this thread with man-hug pics at their fingertips.
And all those guys have way more hair than I do.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think you will find that many more people in the world have been infected with HIV through heterosexual contact than through homosexual contact.
Maybe?
All I know Is when I was hualing peoples butts around on the ambulance Every single Aids patient I ever had was Gay Bar none.
Now mabey that just Dallas in the early and mid 1990s i dont know but thats what I saw.
Now It must be said also that dumarse IV drug users are another popular way of spreading AIDS.
So you really cant pin it on the gays
all the Idiots have a hand in it.
It's just a shame that people who keep donuts out of there butts and needle out of there arms end up getting this horrible killer.
Who's to blame who do we point out condesending little fingers at?
You'r quess is as good as mine I dont know.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
However, I easily acknowlege that the american society is a christian society. Christian rules dominated writing the declaration and constitution.
And you learned this where? Talk radio?
There's no Jesus in the Constitution or Dec. of Independence.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But a lot of the argument comes down to whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not.
Ask any veteran public kindergarden teacher, some people are just that way.